Mueller is casting a wide net. We now know the target is Trump.

[Faun]

The NY Post is a tabloid that sells to small minded people like you who loves lurid conspiracy theories.
God you’re such a dope.
You actually make Miketx and Bripat look smart and they’re the lowest bottom feeders on this forum.

Strzok's behavior is not conspiracy theory.


The FBI using democrat party smear material handed to them by a foreign operative is not conspiracy theory.


The shit that Mueller is supposedly investigating? Now that's some serious tin foil hat shit.

All Sean Hannity type conspiracy theories. All your bullshit you swear is going to make a difference NEVER materializes so you just move on to more lies your media tells you then...
Cyclical pattern.

From the BBC.


Clinton team 'funded' Trump dirty dossier


Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Political campaigns have been in the business of digging up dirt on their rivals since the dawn of democratic elections. A choice bit of "opposition research", deployed at an opportune moment, can be a decisive factor in a close election.

So it should come as little surprise that supporters of a Republican candidate went to work building a file on Donald Trump during the party primaries or that Democrats took the baton as the general election geared up.

What's unusual - and what will pique the interest of investigators and fuel the suspicions of conservatives - is that after the election, once Hillary Clinton was defeated, the FBI would pick up funding for this investigation.

A topic as sensitive as this - allegations of foreign influence on a presidential campaign - doesn't seem like something the US government should be outsourcing.

There have been plenty of accusations, on both sides of ideological divide, that the FBI has become politicised. Stories like this won't help diminish those concerns.

Clinton retained a law firm.

That law firm paid Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump; which Fusion GPS had performed for a conservative group during the primaries.

Fusion GPS then hired Steele, an ex-British spy with Russian connections, to report on connections between Trump and Russia.

While Hillary's money indirectly went to Steele, it's no more accurate to frame like Hillary funded the dossier than it is to say I funded the dossier since I contributed to Hillary's campaign.

In other words, my money went to Hillary ... Hillary's money went to Perkins Coie ... Perkins Coie's money went to Fusion GPS ... Fusion GPS's money went to Steele ... Steele compiled a dossier. Therefore, I funded the dossier using that logic.

Taken even further, the firm I work for pays me to work for them -- that means they funded the dossier. In fact, you may have paid for services which contract my firm -- that means you may have funded the dossier.

Fusion GPS performed opposition research FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN.

That research, the famous dossier of unverified rumor, once Hillary was defeated, that work and the primary agent doing it, slimed on over to the FBI.


The file was paid for, and created for the Hillary campaign. Calling it "democratic smear material" is completely accurate.


The material was later used and paid for, by the FBI.


The work of fighting against Trump, even though he was now the duly elected President continued uninterrupted.

Great, then you can prove Steele knew Hillary was paying him..... G'head, let's see your evidence.....

 

[Correll]

Good stuff, thanks.



"If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.

More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.

Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.

As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.” That prosecutor, Joseph diGenova, believes Trump was correct when he claimed Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.

These and other elements combine to make a toxic brew that smells to high heaven, but most Americans don’t know much about it. Mainstream media coverage has been sparse and dismissive and there’s a blackout from the same Democrats obsessed with Russia, Russia, Russia."

The NY Post is a tabloid that sells to small minded people like you who loves lurid conspiracy theories.
God you’re such a dope.
You actually make Miketx and Bripat look smart and they’re the lowest bottom feeders on this forum.

Strzok's behavior is not conspiracy theory.


The FBI using democrat party smear material handed to them by a foreign operative is not conspiracy theory.


The shit that Mueller is supposedly investigating? Now that's some serious tin foil hat shit.

That too is a lie. The material the FBI used from the dossier was compiled by an ex British spy. It was not "Democrat party smear material."....

Steele put together the dossier first for the dems then shopped it to the FBI.


Indeed, the line between the Dem Party and the various libs in government AND thus their agencies seems oddly blurred.

That too is a lie. You obviously have no clue what this is all about since all you're posting are lies.

You have no evidence Steele put his dossier together for Democrats. His client was Fusion GPS. That is not Democrats. You have posted absolutely zero proof that Steele knew Hillary or the DNC was involved.

LOL!!!

 

[Correll]

Strzok's behavior is not conspiracy theory.


The FBI using democrat party smear material handed to them by a foreign operative is not conspiracy theory.


The shit that Mueller is supposedly investigating? Now that's some serious tin foil hat shit.

All Sean Hannity type conspiracy theories. All your bullshit you swear is going to make a difference NEVER materializes so you just move on to more lies your media tells you then...
Cyclical pattern.

From the BBC.


Clinton team 'funded' Trump dirty dossier


Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Political campaigns have been in the business of digging up dirt on their rivals since the dawn of democratic elections. A choice bit of "opposition research", deployed at an opportune moment, can be a decisive factor in a close election.

So it should come as little surprise that supporters of a Republican candidate went to work building a file on Donald Trump during the party primaries or that Democrats took the baton as the general election geared up.

What's unusual - and what will pique the interest of investigators and fuel the suspicions of conservatives - is that after the election, once Hillary Clinton was defeated, the FBI would pick up funding for this investigation.

A topic as sensitive as this - allegations of foreign influence on a presidential campaign - doesn't seem like something the US government should be outsourcing.

There have been plenty of accusations, on both sides of ideological divide, that the FBI has become politicised. Stories like this won't help diminish those concerns.

Clinton retained a law firm.

That law firm paid Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump; which Fusion GPS had performed for a conservative group during the primaries.

Fusion GPS then hired Steele, an ex-British spy with Russian connections, to report on connections between Trump and Russia.

While Hillary's money indirectly went to Steele, it's no more accurate to frame like Hillary funded the dossier than it is to say I funded the dossier since I contributed to Hillary's campaign.

In other words, my money went to Hillary ... Hillary's money went to Perkins Coie ... Perkins Coie's money went to Fusion GPS ... Fusion GPS's money went to Steele ... Steele compiled a dossier. Therefore, I funded the dossier using that logic.

Taken even further, the firm I work for pays me to work for them -- that means they funded the dossier. In fact, you may have paid for services which contract my firm -- that means you may have funded the dossier.

Fusion GPS performed opposition research FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN.

That research, the famous dossier of unverified rumor, once Hillary was defeated, that work and the primary agent doing it, slimed on over to the FBI.


The file was paid for, and created for the Hillary campaign. Calling it "democratic smear material" is completely accurate.


The material was later used and paid for, by the FBI.


The work of fighting against Trump, even though he was now the duly elected President continued uninterrupted.

Great, then you can prove Steele knew Hillary was paying him..... G'head, let's see your evidence.....

And how does the made up and very, very, very slim, possibility that Steele did not know was paying his wages, change the fact that the dossier was, as I described it, Dem smear material?

 

[Faun]

You’re truly brain-dead. There’s simply no other explanation.

You are an asshole. See, two can play the insult game. The difference is that I am not lying.

1. I’m not making any such equivalency. There is none. There’s no equivalence to the the right letting Ken Starr, who was linked to the Paula Jones case against Clinton, spend 6 years investigating the Clinton’s over allegations made by the right. There’s no equivalence to the right opening up 8 separate investigations into Benghazi. With Gowdy, the architect of the last one, dragging it into an election season nearly 4 years after the attack; admitting it would cost Hillary votes.

Bill Clinton was a serial sexual harasser. Remember, the talking points have changed. THat matters again. That the dems stone walled, and the feminists gave him a pass, doesn't change the facts.

2. There is no political bias in Mueller’s investigation.It’s a bipartisan team Mueller assembled and any bias Mueller encountered, like Strzok, was kicked off the investigation. Your limp efforts to marginalize Muellerfail since Mueller was chosen because of his pristine credibility. While there will certainly be some schmucks on the right who will refuse to accept any indictmentson Trump should any be forthcoming, most of America will accept it.

Strzok was kicked off when he got caught, not a moment before. Until that moment, he was considered to be wonderfully credibly too. Considering that he was not considered a real problem by the FBI, and was placed in such a sensitive position, calls into question the neutrality of the entire agency.

3. There’s no movement on the left to permanently marginalize Trump voters. Mueller is a Republican. He is not the left. Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein, also a Republican. Rosenstein is not the left. Rosenstein was responsible for appointing a special counsel because Sessions recused himself due to his own connections to Tussia. Sessions is also Republican and also not the left. They were appointed by Trump. Trump is also a Republican and not the left. You’re so fucked in the head, you’re blaming the left for the actions of Republicans.

If Trump and his supporters are denied the possibility of advancing their agenda, as is their right for having won the election, for the White House AND the House of Representatives, AND the Senate, AND having a friendly Court,

Then you have removed the option of winning the Democratic Process from a large segment of the population.


Whatever little excuse you have in your mind to claim that that is not permanently marginalizing a large percentage of the population, won't change that.


If you are serious about doing that, you really should consider the consequences.

4. I never said the left is above violence. I pointed out there are some on the right who are threatening violence, as insane as civil war, should Trump be indicted. And you’re just as nuts, since as I showed, the investigation comes from the right, not the left, and it’s actually been the right, not the left, who’s carried out witch hunts and unjust investigations. You unwittingly said so yourself when you called the string of Benghazi investigations as such because you thought I was talking about Mueller’s investigation.

I said nothing about an indictment. My point was very clear. Your make peaceful change impossible, you permanently marginalize a large percentage of the population, and you are assholes on top of that, and you will be asking for trouble.


What part of that was confusing to you? How did you manage to confuse yourself about what I said?

Of course you're lying. I've already shown that. And now you're deflecting too.

1. The 6 year long Ken Starr witch hunt was about Whitewater, not Clinton's past allegations of sexual abuse. Though over time, it expanded into filegate, travelgate, vincefostergate, paulajonesgate, monicalewinskigate. You know, what even you called a "witch hunt" when you thought we were talking about Russia! Russia! Russia!. There is no equivalence to that as Democrats have never done that to Republicans. Now either address that or don't, but don't try to pivot that to be about sexual allegations against Clinton.

2. Strzok was kicked off the investigation by Mueller when his bias was exposed to Mueller. Why would Mueller kick him off before learning about it?

3. Is a bullshit claim that a sitting president should never be impeached because it disenfranchises said president's voters. That bullshit is self-evident by the existence of impeachment instructions enshrined in our Constitution on the grounds of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is what Trump can be impeached on should Mueller find evidence of such.

4. Of course you were talking about indictment. You even threatened the left should Mueller indict Trump on a process crime.

1. You brought up Jones, not me. Bill was a serial sexual harasser.

2. Support your assumption that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias.

3. Your justifications for your anti-democratic actions is noted and dismissed. I hope they provide you with some comfort when you realize the terrible damage you have inflicted on this nation. (actually I don't, I hope you are aware enough to realize what a vile thing you have done and that it hurts you terribly)

4. YOur word games bore me. You will be responsible for the results of your actions.

1. I brought up Jones in the context that Starr was involved in that case prior to being named an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The context was about Starr, not Jones or Clinton's past sexual allegations. You should learn about context so you know what people are talking about.

2. The texts first came to light in early December, when the New York Times reported that Mueller had ousted Strzok after learning of the anti-Trump messages. Strzok, who was removed in late July, had sent the messages to an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.

3. Only a dumbfuck could frame impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, as terrible damage inflicted upon this nation.

You're a partisan hack, becoming increasingly unhinged by the day.

4. LOL ... I'm quoting you. How the fuck is that "word games?" You said...

BTW, if you fuckers manage to gin up something to get some of his people in jail, for bullshit reasons, such as "perjury traps" or other process "crimes".

DOn't kid yourself, those people will be political prisoners.

This is going to cost you someday.

... how does that not speak to indictment? How is one put in jail without ever being indicted?? You're fucking dumber than shit to position this as though I'm the one playing word games by pointing out you talked about indictments.

1. You've been all over the place, and not making a lot of sense. Maybe you should just restate your point, if you remember it.


2. Nothing in there proves that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias ahead of time. It is just as likely that the reason for the firing was that the texts would reveal the partisan bias of the whole investigation.


3. YOu keep talking shit. YOu permanently disenfranchise the Trump supporters, and the results of that will come back to bite you in the ass. You should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

1. It's not my fault you can't keep up. I’m not making any such false equivalency. There is none. There is nothing equivalent on the left to the Ken Starr 6 year investigation into Clinton or the 8 investigations into Benghazi.

2. You claimed that Mueller only dropped Strzok from his team when Strzok's bias became known. The link I posted shows it didn't become known until December, 2017 -- but Mueller dropped him 5 months earlier, in July. That you can't comprehend that is also on you.

3. If talking shit disenfranchises a president's supporters, both sides are guilty of that. But what this really amounts to is that you're ignorant as to what disenfranchise actually means. It doesn't mean talking shit. It requires an action which marginalizes a president's power. Talking shit has not marginalized Trump's power. If he gets indicted, then his power is marginalized; but then your asinine point is that indictments are disenfranchising is absurd as indictments are judicial. To claim otherwise, as you are childishly crying, is to claim a president is a dictator who can do anything extralegal and not have to suffer judicial consequences. Then you have to deal with the harsh reality that Mueller is a Republican who was appoint by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican. That amounts to you crying that Republicans are being disenfranchised by Republicans. Do you feel stupid yet?

4. Your silence on this is accepted as concession.

 

[AZGAL]

WHAT A DUH DUMB THREAD you started Little Witch: HERR MUELLER HAS NOTHING except petty "lying to the FBI" stuff and a lot on Manafort before he joined the campaign. The President did not collude, did not commit an offense: "What's up with the guilty pleas, if there's nothing to see here?"

 

[Faun]

Faun is a troll not worth the time of day.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/

Good stuff, thanks.



"If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.

More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.

Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.

As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.” That prosecutor, Joseph diGenova, believes Trump was correct when he claimed Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.

These and other elements combine to make a toxic brew that smells to high heaven, but most Americans don’t know much about it. Mainstream media coverage has been sparse and dismissive and there’s a blackout from the same Democrats obsessed with Russia, Russia, Russia."

What the FBI used the dossier for was to present evidence to a FISC that Page did business in Russia; and that was corroborated.

There is no scandal he with the FBI which is why this went nowhere despite GOP hyperbole prior to the release of Nunes' memo that people would go to jail over it. Unfortunately for the GOP, their rhetoric fizzled as soon as America got to see what was actually in Nunes' memo....

If that were true, then why has the dems not called for the release of the Fisa warrants?


Or just leaked them?


Answer: Because they used the dossier, that they knew was shit, to get the warrants.


And they did it, because the bias shown by Strzok is wide spread in the FBI leadership, which explains the FBI's shit behavior.

You're lying again. Case in point, Trump could have declassified the FISA application and released it. Using your strawman logic, that he hasn't means he knows the GOP is full of shit. Members of the GOP could have leaked it. Again, using your strawman logic, that he hasn't means the GOP knows they are full of shit.

The republicans don't dare leak. They would be caught and sent to jail.


The lefties in the government know that they will be taken care of by their fellow travelers, and given cover or even a pass if caught.

LOL

Dismissed as the humor it was intended to be.

 

[Faun]

The NY Post is a tabloid that sells to small minded people like you who loves lurid conspiracy theories.
God you’re such a dope.
You actually make Miketx and Bripat look smart and they’re the lowest bottom feeders on this forum.

Strzok's behavior is not conspiracy theory.


The FBI using democrat party smear material handed to them by a foreign operative is not conspiracy theory.


The shit that Mueller is supposedly investigating? Now that's some serious tin foil hat shit.

That too is a lie. The material the FBI used from the dossier was compiled by an ex British spy. It was not "Democrat party smear material."....

Steele put together the dossier first for the dems then shopped it to the FBI.


Indeed, the line between the Dem Party and the various libs in government AND thus their agencies seems oddly blurred.

That too is a lie. You obviously have no clue what this is all about since all you're posting are lies.

You have no evidence Steele put his dossier together for Democrats. His client was Fusion GPS. That is not Democrats. You have posted absolutely zero proof that Steele knew Hillary or the DNC was involved.

LOL!!!

Great, let's see your proof that Steele knew of Hillary's involvement.....

 

[Faun]

All Sean Hannity type conspiracy theories. All your bullshit you swear is going to make a difference NEVER materializes so you just move on to more lies your media tells you then...
Cyclical pattern.

From the BBC.


Clinton team 'funded' Trump dirty dossier


Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Political campaigns have been in the business of digging up dirt on their rivals since the dawn of democratic elections. A choice bit of "opposition research", deployed at an opportune moment, can be a decisive factor in a close election.

So it should come as little surprise that supporters of a Republican candidate went to work building a file on Donald Trump during the party primaries or that Democrats took the baton as the general election geared up.

What's unusual - and what will pique the interest of investigators and fuel the suspicions of conservatives - is that after the election, once Hillary Clinton was defeated, the FBI would pick up funding for this investigation.

A topic as sensitive as this - allegations of foreign influence on a presidential campaign - doesn't seem like something the US government should be outsourcing.

There have been plenty of accusations, on both sides of ideological divide, that the FBI has become politicised. Stories like this won't help diminish those concerns.

Clinton retained a law firm.

That law firm paid Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump; which Fusion GPS had performed for a conservative group during the primaries.

Fusion GPS then hired Steele, an ex-British spy with Russian connections, to report on connections between Trump and Russia.

While Hillary's money indirectly went to Steele, it's no more accurate to frame like Hillary funded the dossier than it is to say I funded the dossier since I contributed to Hillary's campaign.

In other words, my money went to Hillary ... Hillary's money went to Perkins Coie ... Perkins Coie's money went to Fusion GPS ... Fusion GPS's money went to Steele ... Steele compiled a dossier. Therefore, I funded the dossier using that logic.

Taken even further, the firm I work for pays me to work for them -- that means they funded the dossier. In fact, you may have paid for services which contract my firm -- that means you may have funded the dossier.

Fusion GPS performed opposition research FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN.

That research, the famous dossier of unverified rumor, once Hillary was defeated, that work and the primary agent doing it, slimed on over to the FBI.


The file was paid for, and created for the Hillary campaign. Calling it "democratic smear material" is completely accurate.


The material was later used and paid for, by the FBI.


The work of fighting against Trump, even though he was now the duly elected President continued uninterrupted.

Great, then you can prove Steele knew Hillary was paying him..... G'head, let's see your evidence.....

And how does the made up and very, very, very slim, possibility that Steele did not know was paying his wages, change the fact that the dossier was, as I described it, Dem smear material?

Let me repeat my challenge since you pivoted away from it. Hopefully, asking again will inspire an answer and not a question....

prove Steele knew Hillary was paying him..... G'head, let's see your evidence.....

 

[Correll]

You are an asshole. See, two can play the insult game. The difference is that I am not lying.


Bill Clinton was a serial sexual harasser. Remember, the talking points have changed. THat matters again. That the dems stone walled, and the feminists gave him a pass, doesn't change the facts.


Strzok was kicked off when he got caught, not a moment before. Until that moment, he was considered to be wonderfully credibly too. Considering that he was not considered a real problem by the FBI, and was placed in such a sensitive position, calls into question the neutrality of the entire agency.



If Trump and his supporters are denied the possibility of advancing their agenda, as is their right for having won the election, for the White House AND the House of Representatives, AND the Senate, AND having a friendly Court,

Then you have removed the option of winning the Democratic Process from a large segment of the population.


Whatever little excuse you have in your mind to claim that that is not permanently marginalizing a large percentage of the population, won't change that.


If you are serious about doing that, you really should consider the consequences.


I said nothing about an indictment. My point was very clear. Your make peaceful change impossible, you permanently marginalize a large percentage of the population, and you are assholes on top of that, and you will be asking for trouble.


What part of that was confusing to you? How did you manage to confuse yourself about what I said?

Of course you're lying. I've already shown that. And now you're deflecting too.

1. The 6 year long Ken Starr witch hunt was about Whitewater, not Clinton's past allegations of sexual abuse. Though over time, it expanded into filegate, travelgate, vincefostergate, paulajonesgate, monicalewinskigate. You know, what even you called a "witch hunt" when you thought we were talking about Russia! Russia! Russia!. There is no equivalence to that as Democrats have never done that to Republicans. Now either address that or don't, but don't try to pivot that to be about sexual allegations against Clinton.

2. Strzok was kicked off the investigation by Mueller when his bias was exposed to Mueller. Why would Mueller kick him off before learning about it?

3. Is a bullshit claim that a sitting president should never be impeached because it disenfranchises said president's voters. That bullshit is self-evident by the existence of impeachment instructions enshrined in our Constitution on the grounds of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is what Trump can be impeached on should Mueller find evidence of such.

4. Of course you were talking about indictment. You even threatened the left should Mueller indict Trump on a process crime.

1. You brought up Jones, not me. Bill was a serial sexual harasser.

2. Support your assumption that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias.

3. Your justifications for your anti-democratic actions is noted and dismissed. I hope they provide you with some comfort when you realize the terrible damage you have inflicted on this nation. (actually I don't, I hope you are aware enough to realize what a vile thing you have done and that it hurts you terribly)

4. YOur word games bore me. You will be responsible for the results of your actions.

1. I brought up Jones in the context that Starr was involved in that case prior to being named an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The context was about Starr, not Jones or Clinton's past sexual allegations. You should learn about context so you know what people are talking about.

2. The texts first came to light in early December, when the New York Times reported that Mueller had ousted Strzok after learning of the anti-Trump messages. Strzok, who was removed in late July, had sent the messages to an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.

3. Only a dumbfuck could frame impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, as terrible damage inflicted upon this nation.

You're a partisan hack, becoming increasingly unhinged by the day.

4. LOL ... I'm quoting you. How the fuck is that "word games?" You said...

BTW, if you fuckers manage to gin up something to get some of his people in jail, for bullshit reasons, such as "perjury traps" or other process "crimes".

DOn't kid yourself, those people will be political prisoners.

This is going to cost you someday.

... how does that not speak to indictment? How is one put in jail without ever being indicted?? You're fucking dumber than shit to position this as though I'm the one playing word games by pointing out you talked about indictments.

1. You've been all over the place, and not making a lot of sense. Maybe you should just restate your point, if you remember it.


2. Nothing in there proves that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias ahead of time. It is just as likely that the reason for the firing was that the texts would reveal the partisan bias of the whole investigation.


3. YOu keep talking shit. YOu permanently disenfranchise the Trump supporters, and the results of that will come back to bite you in the ass. You should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

1. It's not my fault you can't keep up. I’m not making any such false equivalency. There is none. There is nothing equivalent on the left to the Ken Starr 6 year investigation into Clinton or the 8 investigations into Benghazi.

2. You claimed that Mueller only dropped Strzok from his team when Strzok's bias became known. The link I posted shows it didn't become known until December, 2017 -- but Mueller dropped him 5 months earlier, in July. That you can't comprehend that is also on you.

3. If talking shit disenfranchises a president's supporters, both sides are guilty of that. But what this really amounts to is that you're ignorant as to what disenfranchise actually means. It doesn't mean talking shit. It requires an action which marginalizes a president's power. Talking shit has not marginalized Trump's power. If he gets indicted, then his power is marginalized; but then your asinine point is that indictments are disenfranchising is absurd as indictments are judicial. To claim otherwise, as you are childishly crying, is to claim a president is a dictator who can do anything extralegal and not have to suffer judicial consequences. Then you have to deal with the harsh reality that Mueller is a Republican who was appoint by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican. That amounts to you crying that Republicans are being disenfranchised by Republicans. Do you feel stupid yet?

4. Your silence on this is accepted as concession.

1. You jumping all over the place is not me, not keeping up. The witch hunt the Left is conducting is clear. YOu have admitted that even if Trump is proved innocent, that you will be happy if the "investigation" leads to a good mid term election for you. That's not justice. That is not an honest investigation.


2. Says the lefty that has done nothing to support his assumption that Mueller did not known of Strzok's bias from the beginning.


3. Your game of not understanding very simple sentences is boring. How many times do I have to refer to "TRump supporters" before you realize that I am talking about "Trump supporters" and not Trump. Trump is an old man, soon to be dead. The segment of society he spoke for, will always be with you, and more and more pissed off as you continue to fuck them.


4. POint 3 and 4 evolved into the same point. Try to be less dishonest.

 

[AZGAL]

Steele is missing, so I guess its going to be difficult to ask him.

 

[Faun]

Of course you're lying. I've already shown that. And now you're deflecting too.

1. The 6 year long Ken Starr witch hunt was about Whitewater, not Clinton's past allegations of sexual abuse. Though over time, it expanded into filegate, travelgate, vincefostergate, paulajonesgate, monicalewinskigate. You know, what even you called a "witch hunt" when you thought we were talking about Russia! Russia! Russia!. There is no equivalence to that as Democrats have never done that to Republicans. Now either address that or don't, but don't try to pivot that to be about sexual allegations against Clinton.

2. Strzok was kicked off the investigation by Mueller when his bias was exposed to Mueller. Why would Mueller kick him off before learning about it?

3. Is a bullshit claim that a sitting president should never be impeached because it disenfranchises said president's voters. That bullshit is self-evident by the existence of impeachment instructions enshrined in our Constitution on the grounds of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is what Trump can be impeached on should Mueller find evidence of such.

4. Of course you were talking about indictment. You even threatened the left should Mueller indict Trump on a process crime.

1. You brought up Jones, not me. Bill was a serial sexual harasser.

2. Support your assumption that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias.

3. Your justifications for your anti-democratic actions is noted and dismissed. I hope they provide you with some comfort when you realize the terrible damage you have inflicted on this nation. (actually I don't, I hope you are aware enough to realize what a vile thing you have done and that it hurts you terribly)

4. YOur word games bore me. You will be responsible for the results of your actions.

1. I brought up Jones in the context that Starr was involved in that case prior to being named an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The context was about Starr, not Jones or Clinton's past sexual allegations. You should learn about context so you know what people are talking about.

2. The texts first came to light in early December, when the New York Times reported that Mueller had ousted Strzok after learning of the anti-Trump messages. Strzok, who was removed in late July, had sent the messages to an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.

3. Only a dumbfuck could frame impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, as terrible damage inflicted upon this nation.

You're a partisan hack, becoming increasingly unhinged by the day.

4. LOL ... I'm quoting you. How the fuck is that "word games?" You said...

BTW, if you fuckers manage to gin up something to get some of his people in jail, for bullshit reasons, such as "perjury traps" or other process "crimes".

DOn't kid yourself, those people will be political prisoners.

This is going to cost you someday.

... how does that not speak to indictment? How is one put in jail without ever being indicted?? You're fucking dumber than shit to position this as though I'm the one playing word games by pointing out you talked about indictments.

1. You've been all over the place, and not making a lot of sense. Maybe you should just restate your point, if you remember it.


2. Nothing in there proves that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias ahead of time. It is just as likely that the reason for the firing was that the texts would reveal the partisan bias of the whole investigation.


3. YOu keep talking shit. YOu permanently disenfranchise the Trump supporters, and the results of that will come back to bite you in the ass. You should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

1. It's not my fault you can't keep up. I’m not making any such false equivalency. There is none. There is nothing equivalent on the left to the Ken Starr 6 year investigation into Clinton or the 8 investigations into Benghazi.

2. You claimed that Mueller only dropped Strzok from his team when Strzok's bias became known. The link I posted shows it didn't become known until December, 2017 -- but Mueller dropped him 5 months earlier, in July. That you can't comprehend that is also on you.

3. If talking shit disenfranchises a president's supporters, both sides are guilty of that. But what this really amounts to is that you're ignorant as to what disenfranchise actually means. It doesn't mean talking shit. It requires an action which marginalizes a president's power. Talking shit has not marginalized Trump's power. If he gets indicted, then his power is marginalized; but then your asinine point is that indictments are disenfranchising is absurd as indictments are judicial. To claim otherwise, as you are childishly crying, is to claim a president is a dictator who can do anything extralegal and not have to suffer judicial consequences. Then you have to deal with the harsh reality that Mueller is a Republican who was appoint by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican. That amounts to you crying that Republicans are being disenfranchised by Republicans. Do you feel stupid yet?

4. Your silence on this is accepted as concession.

1. You jumping all over the place is not me, not keeping up. The witch hunt the Left is conducting is clear. YOu have admitted that even if Trump is proved innocent, that you will be happy if the "investigation" leads to a good mid term election for you. That's not justice. That is not an honest investigation.

Now you're just lying again. What I actually said was...

What if what he finds, has NOTHING to do with the Russians or the Campaign?

Then Trump is exonerated.

As far as your idiocy of a witch hunt of the left, I seem to need to remind you yet again ... Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican who was elected by Republicans.

You know, what you call, "the left."

Exactly how retarded do you need to get until you start feeling stupid? Full retard?

2. Says the lefty that has done nothing to support his assumption that Mueller did not known of Strzok's bias from the beginning.

Now you're changing your position. Earlier, you posited that Mueller only dropped Strzok because Strzok's bias became known. I proved that is false, so now you claim there was some other reason to provoke Mueller's firing of Stzok. Of course, you can't say what that is since you're making up a new position to substitute for the one I shot down, so that is on you to support.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed one of the agents, Peter Strzok, from the Russia probe "immediately" after learning of the texts in late July, the department said in a letter to lawmakers.​

If you have evidence to the contrary, you certainly have not presented it.

3. Your game of not understanding very simple sentences is boring. How many times do I have to refer to "TRump supporters" before you realize that I am talking about "Trump supporters" and not Trump. Trump is an old man, soon to be dead. The segment of society he spoke for, will always be with you, and more and more pissed off as you continue to fuck them.

How much more eloquent than pointing out "Trump supporters" do I have to be other other than talking about "Trump supporters" for you to comprehend I was talking about "Trump supporters?" "Trump supporters" are not disenfranchised by indictment of a president. At least not as long as Trump is not a dictator.

4. POint 3 and 4 evolved into the same point. Try to be less dishonest.

Says you. Point 3 is your idiotic claim that judicial review disenfranchises voters; while point 4, which started from your delusion that I ever said the left doesn't get violent; but morphed into your bizarre denial that you ever spoke of indictment, even though you were talking about being indicted on perjury or other process crimes.

 

[Correll]

1. You brought up Jones, not me. Bill was a serial sexual harasser.

2. Support your assumption that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias.

3. Your justifications for your anti-democratic actions is noted and dismissed. I hope they provide you with some comfort when you realize the terrible damage you have inflicted on this nation. (actually I don't, I hope you are aware enough to realize what a vile thing you have done and that it hurts you terribly)

4. YOur word games bore me. You will be responsible for the results of your actions.

1. I brought up Jones in the context that Starr was involved in that case prior to being named an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The context was about Starr, not Jones or Clinton's past sexual allegations. You should learn about context so you know what people are talking about.

2. The texts first came to light in early December, when the New York Times reported that Mueller had ousted Strzok after learning of the anti-Trump messages. Strzok, who was removed in late July, had sent the messages to an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.

3. Only a dumbfuck could frame impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, as terrible damage inflicted upon this nation.

You're a partisan hack, becoming increasingly unhinged by the day.

4. LOL ... I'm quoting you. How the fuck is that "word games?" You said...

BTW, if you fuckers manage to gin up something to get some of his people in jail, for bullshit reasons, such as "perjury traps" or other process "crimes".

DOn't kid yourself, those people will be political prisoners.

This is going to cost you someday.

... how does that not speak to indictment? How is one put in jail without ever being indicted?? You're fucking dumber than shit to position this as though I'm the one playing word games by pointing out you talked about indictments.

1. You've been all over the place, and not making a lot of sense. Maybe you should just restate your point, if you remember it.


2. Nothing in there proves that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias ahead of time. It is just as likely that the reason for the firing was that the texts would reveal the partisan bias of the whole investigation.


3. YOu keep talking shit. YOu permanently disenfranchise the Trump supporters, and the results of that will come back to bite you in the ass. You should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

1. It's not my fault you can't keep up. I’m not making any such false equivalency. There is none. There is nothing equivalent on the left to the Ken Starr 6 year investigation into Clinton or the 8 investigations into Benghazi.

2. You claimed that Mueller only dropped Strzok from his team when Strzok's bias became known. The link I posted shows it didn't become known until December, 2017 -- but Mueller dropped him 5 months earlier, in July. That you can't comprehend that is also on you.

3. If talking shit disenfranchises a president's supporters, both sides are guilty of that. But what this really amounts to is that you're ignorant as to what disenfranchise actually means. It doesn't mean talking shit. It requires an action which marginalizes a president's power. Talking shit has not marginalized Trump's power. If he gets indicted, then his power is marginalized; but then your asinine point is that indictments are disenfranchising is absurd as indictments are judicial. To claim otherwise, as you are childishly crying, is to claim a president is a dictator who can do anything extralegal and not have to suffer judicial consequences. Then you have to deal with the harsh reality that Mueller is a Republican who was appoint by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican. That amounts to you crying that Republicans are being disenfranchised by Republicans. Do you feel stupid yet?

4. Your silence on this is accepted as concession.

1. You jumping all over the place is not me, not keeping up. The witch hunt the Left is conducting is clear. YOu have admitted that even if Trump is proved innocent, that you will be happy if the "investigation" leads to a good mid term election for you. That's not justice. That is not an honest investigation.

Now you're just lying again. What I actually said was...

What if what he finds, has NOTHING to do with the Russians or the Campaign?

Then Trump is exonerated.

As far as your idiocy of a witch hunt of the left, I seem to need to remind you yet again ... Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican who was elected by Republicans.

You know, what you call, "the left."

Exactly how retarded do you need to get until you start feeling stupid? Full retard?

2. Says the lefty that has done nothing to support his assumption that Mueller did not known of Strzok's bias from the beginning.

Now you're changing your position. Earlier, you posited that Mueller only dropped Strzok because Strzok's bias became known. I proved that is false, so now you claim there was some other reason to provoke Mueller's firing of Stzok. Of course, you can't say what that is since you're making up a new position to substitute for the one I shot down, so that is on you to support.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed one of the agents, Peter Strzok, from the Russia probe "immediately" after learning of the texts in late July, the department said in a letter to lawmakers.​

If you have evidence to the contrary, you certainly have not presented it.

3. Your game of not understanding very simple sentences is boring. How many times do I have to refer to "TRump supporters" before you realize that I am talking about "Trump supporters" and not Trump. Trump is an old man, soon to be dead. The segment of society he spoke for, will always be with you, and more and more pissed off as you continue to fuck them.

How much more eloquent than pointing out "Trump supporters" do I have to be other other than talking about "Trump supporters" for you to comprehend I was talking about "Trump supporters?" "Trump supporters" are not disenfranchised by indictment of a president. At least not as long as Trump is not a dictator.

4. POint 3 and 4 evolved into the same point. Try to be less dishonest.

Says you. Point 3 is your idiotic claim that judicial review disenfranchises voters; while point 4, which started from your delusion that I ever said the left doesn't get violent; but morphed into your bizarre denial that you ever spoke of indictment, even though you were talking about being indicted on perjury or other process crimes.

1. Earlier you said you would be happy is if just resulted in good mid term election results.

2. The overall behavior of the FBI, does not suggest that having an anti-Trump bias would have been an anomaly, nor seen as a problem.

3. Yes, they are. Trump is the only Voice they have had for generations and if they lose that, even though they finally won an election, that shows that people like you can overrule democracy to fuck them. And always will.

That's the effective end of democracy in this country. After that, we are just going though the motions.

4. Same point. You reverse the results of the election, and that's telling tens of millions of people, that they don't get to have a voice, ever.

 

[Political Junky]

You are undermining the very concept of democracy.


Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable.

Nonsense, no one will get violent. Stop being such a drama queen.

You permanent marginalize a large portion of your population, and eventually, they will get violent.


Especially if you insist on rubbing salt into the many wounds you inflict on them.


As you fuckers do, constantly.

Nah, you’re nuts. I’m not marginalizing anyone.

Trump spoke out for a large group of voters that have been completely ignored in policy for decades. That is why he won.


He is their first spokesman in generations.


You take him down, or even prevent him from getting anything done, and you have marginalized that group.


You are telling them, hell proving to them, that people like you won't let democracy work for them. Ever.


YOu really didn't think that though?


Typical.

I honestly don't give a shit. Women and minorities have been marginalized for centuries. What. Are you afraid you'll be treated as badly as you've treated us for all these years?

Typical.

He's afraid of not having folks he can look down on.

 

[Correll]

Nonsense, no one will get violent. Stop being such a drama queen.

You permanent marginalize a large portion of your population, and eventually, they will get violent.


Especially if you insist on rubbing salt into the many wounds you inflict on them.


As you fuckers do, constantly.

Nah, you’re nuts. I’m not marginalizing anyone.

Trump spoke out for a large group of voters that have been completely ignored in policy for decades. That is why he won.


He is their first spokesman in generations.


You take him down, or even prevent him from getting anything done, and you have marginalized that group.


You are telling them, hell proving to them, that people like you won't let democracy work for them. Ever.


YOu really didn't think that though?


Typical.

I honestly don't give a shit. Women and minorities have been marginalized for centuries. What. Are you afraid you'll be treated as badly as you've treated us for all these years?

Typical.

He's afraid of not having folks he can look down on.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of libs say shit like that. I've never heard one show that it came from anywhere other than their own internal sickness.


I made a point, none of you lefties have had the balls to address it.

 

[Faun]

1. I brought up Jones in the context that Starr was involved in that case prior to being named an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The context was about Starr, not Jones or Clinton's past sexual allegations. You should learn about context so you know what people are talking about.

2. The texts first came to light in early December, when the New York Times reported that Mueller had ousted Strzok after learning of the anti-Trump messages. Strzok, who was removed in late July, had sent the messages to an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.

3. Only a dumbfuck could frame impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, as terrible damage inflicted upon this nation.

You're a partisan hack, becoming increasingly unhinged by the day.

4. LOL ... I'm quoting you. How the fuck is that "word games?" You said...

​

... how does that not speak to indictment? How is one put in jail without ever being indicted?? You're fucking dumber than shit to position this as though I'm the one playing word games by pointing out you talked about indictments.

1. You've been all over the place, and not making a lot of sense. Maybe you should just restate your point, if you remember it.


2. Nothing in there proves that Mueller did not know of Strzok's bias ahead of time. It is just as likely that the reason for the firing was that the texts would reveal the partisan bias of the whole investigation.


3. YOu keep talking shit. YOu permanently disenfranchise the Trump supporters, and the results of that will come back to bite you in the ass. You should consider the likely consequences of your actions.

1. It's not my fault you can't keep up. I’m not making any such false equivalency. There is none. There is nothing equivalent on the left to the Ken Starr 6 year investigation into Clinton or the 8 investigations into Benghazi.

2. You claimed that Mueller only dropped Strzok from his team when Strzok's bias became known. The link I posted shows it didn't become known until December, 2017 -- but Mueller dropped him 5 months earlier, in July. That you can't comprehend that is also on you.

3. If talking shit disenfranchises a president's supporters, both sides are guilty of that. But what this really amounts to is that you're ignorant as to what disenfranchise actually means. It doesn't mean talking shit. It requires an action which marginalizes a president's power. Talking shit has not marginalized Trump's power. If he gets indicted, then his power is marginalized; but then your asinine point is that indictments are disenfranchising is absurd as indictments are judicial. To claim otherwise, as you are childishly crying, is to claim a president is a dictator who can do anything extralegal and not have to suffer judicial consequences. Then you have to deal with the harsh reality that Mueller is a Republican who was appoint by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican. That amounts to you crying that Republicans are being disenfranchised by Republicans. Do you feel stupid yet?

4. Your silence on this is accepted as concession.

1. You jumping all over the place is not me, not keeping up. The witch hunt the Left is conducting is clear. YOu have admitted that even if Trump is proved innocent, that you will be happy if the "investigation" leads to a good mid term election for you. That's not justice. That is not an honest investigation.

Now you're just lying again. What I actually said was...

What if what he finds, has NOTHING to do with the Russians or the Campaign?

Then Trump is exonerated.

As far as your idiocy of a witch hunt of the left, I seem to need to remind you yet again ... Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican who was filling in for a Republican who was also appointed by a Republican who was elected by Republicans.

You know, what you call, "the left."

Exactly how retarded do you need to get until you start feeling stupid? Full retard?

2. Says the lefty that has done nothing to support his assumption that Mueller did not known of Strzok's bias from the beginning.

Now you're changing your position. Earlier, you posited that Mueller only dropped Strzok because Strzok's bias became known. I proved that is false, so now you claim there was some other reason to provoke Mueller's firing of Stzok. Of course, you can't say what that is since you're making up a new position to substitute for the one I shot down, so that is on you to support.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed one of the agents, Peter Strzok, from the Russia probe "immediately" after learning of the texts in late July, the department said in a letter to lawmakers.​

If you have evidence to the contrary, you certainly have not presented it.

3. Your game of not understanding very simple sentences is boring. How many times do I have to refer to "TRump supporters" before you realize that I am talking about "Trump supporters" and not Trump. Trump is an old man, soon to be dead. The segment of society he spoke for, will always be with you, and more and more pissed off as you continue to fuck them.

How much more eloquent than pointing out "Trump supporters" do I have to be other other than talking about "Trump supporters" for you to comprehend I was talking about "Trump supporters?" "Trump supporters" are not disenfranchised by indictment of a president. At least not as long as Trump is not a dictator.

4. POint 3 and 4 evolved into the same point. Try to be less dishonest.

Says you. Point 3 is your idiotic claim that judicial review disenfranchises voters; while point 4, which started from your delusion that I ever said the left doesn't get violent; but morphed into your bizarre denial that you ever spoke of indictment, even though you were talking about being indicted on perjury or other process crimes.

1. Earlier you said you would be happy is if just resulted in good mid term election results.

2. The overall behavior of the FBI, does not suggest that having an anti-Trump bias would have been an anomaly, nor seen as a problem.

3. Yes, they are. Trump is the only Voice they have had for generations and if they lose that, even though they finally won an election, that shows that people like you can overrule democracy to fuck them. And always will.

That's the effective end of democracy in this country. After that, we are just going though the motions.

4. Same point. You reverse the results of the election, and that's telling tens of millions of people, that they don't get to have a voice, ever.

1. I was juxtapositioning about Benghazi.I told you that.

2. You falsely claimed Mueller knew of Strzok's biased messages but kept him on the investigation until Strzok was found out. I proved that was bullshit.

3. Your idiocy that trump supporters would be disenfranchised should trump be indicted is ludicrous. It's based on the preposterous notion that a president is above the law and that they shouldn't be indicted because their supporters will get violent. What that entails exactly, you would not say.

4. Is DOA because I never said the left is above violence as you falsely ascribed to me; and you your denial of saying anything about indictments was demonstrably false, ridiculed and dismissed.

 

[basquebromance]

"i wrote that he is sorry, he went to Moscow and forgot to check his inbox, but he wants to meet when he gets back. i think he is an idiot and forgot who i am. he writes to me in russian for practice. he flies to Moscow more often than i do. he's hooked on Gazprom, thinking that if they have a project, he could rise up. maybe he can. i don't know, but it's obvious he wants to earn loads of money" - Victor Podobny on Carter Page

 

[Faun]

'Mueller is casting a wide net. We now know the target is Trump.'

EVERYONE has ALWAYS known TRUMP has ALWAYS been the TARGET!

You think Democrats started up a Special Counsel in hopes they could charge people for Tax Evasion dating back to before Obama elected President?

You think Democrats started up a Special Counsel in hopes they could charge Flynn with lying to the FBI over something he was too stupid to know wasn't even illegal?

Of course not - they were after Trump from the start.

Evidence has been provided showing Hillary Clinton broke laws, to include illegally using a document filled with Russian Propaganda that she paid $12 million for to a foreign agent working with Russians in a US election...
- The Prosecuting Attorney leading the Special Counsel tasked with investigating crimes regarding illegal collusion with Russians in regards to the 2016 Presidential election was shown this information / evidence, evidence of a crime he was tasked to find through investigation, and he IGNORED the evidence in the crime because it had nothing to do with Trump.

WTF?! THAT is evidence that the on-going Witch Hunt is and always has been about nothing but 'getting Trump'.

LOL

I see rather than accept my challenge to you to prove your bizarre claim that Hillary spent $12 million to a foreign agent, you’re just gonna repeat that bullshit instead. Good job running away.

I can’t help but notice that easyt65 ran away after being challenged to prove his ludicrous claim that Hillary, ”paid $12 million for to a foreign agent working with Russians in a US election...”

Run, Forrest! Run!!!