Do you agree with this statement

[Marener]

What official said this? Do you have a name of this person, or a video of him saying it? Or is this just some horseshit claim by an article? Where is your EVIDENCE?

That’s my evidence.

Where’s your evidence?

 

[Godboy]

That’s my evidence.

Where’s your evidence?

My evidence is that Obama and his administration has NEVER denied it. They said nothing other than "he wasnt our target", which is an intentionally vague as fuck answer. You dont kill a US citizen minor by accident and your only response is "he wasnt our target". If it was an accident, they would have gone on a world press tour and shouted a thorough explanation from the mountaintops.

 

[Marener]

My evidence is that Obama and his administration has NEVER denied it. They said nothing other than "he wasnt our target", which is an intentionally vague as fuck answer. You dont kill a US citizen minor by accident and your only response is "he wasnt our target". If it was an accident, they would have gone on a world press tour and shouted a thorough explanation from the mountaintops.

That’s not really evidence. That’s just an assumption about what they “would have“ done.

Where did they ever say “he wasn’t our target”?

 

[Godboy]

That’s not really evidence. That’s just an assumption about what they “would have“ done.

Where did they ever say “he wasn’t our target”?

Well, you quoted it, dumb fuck. If you need further help, type it into Google and see what happens. You might be surprised to find out that it is a real quote.

 

[Marener]

Well, you quoted it, dumb fuck. If you need further help, type it into Google and see what happens. You might be surprised to find out that it is a real quote.

Wait, so you criticize my source because it’s anonymous then you use an identically anonymous source to support your tenuous assumption.

Pretty hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where did they do that? Frankly, if the FBI REALLY wanted to rig the 2016, they should have dropped the Steele Dossier and the rumors of the Pee Tape and everything else they had on Trump in October 2016. They didn't. They kept it confidential until AFTER the election. Why? because everyone thought Hillary would win, and they could deal with Russia's attempt to hijack our election off line.

I'm not going to replay the whole history of the FBI's actions toward Trump and Hillary for you. You know what happened, and your gaslighting doesn't work, if it ever did.

If you are truly ignorant, start googling. I'm not your tutor for recent history.

Gee, I'm not seeing anything they said here that was wrong.

And you're fine with them talking like that on FBI phones. I get it. "Trump Bad. Anyone who hate Trump Good."

Trump's lack of knowledge of issues like Crimea SHOULD worry people.

And the GOP has abandoned the white working class.

Yes, he might have let the Crimea be invaded during his term. Oh, wait. Obama already did that. I guess you were worried about the wrong guy.

Here's the thing. The FBI was presented with solid evidence the Russians were trying to change the result of our election, to benefit Trump. 17 Intelligence Agencies concluded that.

You mean the Steel Dossier?

Some of Trump's inner circle had connections to the Russians. How is that NOT something they look into. Just because Trump was more "useful idiot" and less "Asset" to Putin, doesn't mean you don't look into that.

Unfortunately, Trump obstructed the investigation and pardoned everyone involved. Nothing to see here.

Yes, look into it. Look into Hillary's stealing and destroying of classified documents from the State Department.

But have it looked into by people with no political axe to grind, not Trump-hating/Hillary-loving law enforcement charlotans.

When one party is trying to regulate what kind of sex we can have, absolutely. I thought Bill Clinton was kind of a creep the way he treated Lewinsky (and allowed others to treat her). But you know what, Clinton didn't try to ban abortion or contraception. He expanded gay rights. (Although he did sign on to the unconstitutional DOMA).

Trump on the other hand, wants us to be the live-action version of A Handmaid's Tale.

"A Handmaid's Tale?"

That's so childish.

 

[Godboy]

Wait, so you criticize my source because it’s anonymous then you use an identically anonymous source to support your tenuous assumption.

Pretty hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

If they didnt even say "he wasnt the target of our strike", then they simply never addressed it at all, which further shows that he did in fact kill a US citizen without a judge or jury.

 

[Marener]

If they didnt even say "he wasnt the target of our strike", then they simply never addressed it at all, which further shows that he did in fact kill a US citizen without a judge or jury.

They said nothing officially.

How could have they had a judge and jury for someone that wasn’t a target and didn’t even know he was there?

It doesn’t make any sense.

You have nothing to support any of your claims.

 

[Godboy]

They said nothing officially.

They never said anything officially about killing a 16 year old US citizen? Then they for sure knew he was there. There can be no other explanation. You dont accidently kill a minor and then say NOTHING. That simply does not happen.

 

[Marener]

That simply does not happen.

“Trust me bro”.

That’s all you have.

 

[Godboy]

“Trust me bro”.

That’s all you have.

No, i have the fact that Obama has NEVER denied the accusation that he killed a 16 year old US citizen without due process.

 

[Marener]

No, i have the fact that Obama has NEVER denied the accusation that he killed a 16 year old US citizen without due process.

That is a fact.

But you make a ton of assumptions about what that means and act like it’s fact.

 

[Godboy]

That is a fact.

But you make a ton of assumptions about what that means and act like it’s fact.

You dont kill a minor and then say nothing about it to the press ever, unless you are guilty of something. You can pretend to ignore the obvious, but i wont.

 

[Marener]

You dont kill a minor and then say nothing about it to the press ever, unless you are guilty of something.

“Trust me bro”

 

[Godboy]

“Trust me bro”

Yeah, thats what youre asking me to do. That aint gonna work. It wont work in a court of law either. It takes a single conservative DOJ prosecutor to start an Obama murder trial. Then again, you guys believe we are super nice and would never do anything to weaponize the DOJ, right? Conservatives are WAY too cool to go after YOUR presidents, right?

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not going to replay the whole history of the FBI's actions toward Trump and Hillary for you. You know what happened, and your gaslighting doesn't work, if it ever did.

If you are truly ignorant, start googling. I'm not your tutor for recent history.

Really, because it seems to me that they broadcast every aspect of the Hillary Email non-story, but we didn't hear about the Russia, Russia, Russia stuff until after the election. (Where they no doubt hoped the electors would have a bout of good sense and keep that from happening.)

And you're fine with them talking like that on FBI phones. I get it. "Trump Bad. Anyone who hate Trump Good."

Who cares? It's a phone text. Not a big deal. ANd Trump is awful. People saying that on texts isn't wrong.

Yes, he might have let the Crimea be invaded during his term. Oh, wait. Obama already did that. I guess you were worried about the wrong guy.

But at least Obama understood the issue. Trump clearly didn't.

You mean the Steel Dossier?

Yup. Put it out there, before the election, instead of hiding it to protect Trump.

Yes, look into it. Look into Hillary's stealing and destroying of classified documents from the State Department.

But have it looked into by people with no political axe to grind, not Trump-hating/Hillary-loving law enforcement charlotans.

Except she did no such thing.

"A Handmaid's Tale?"

That's so childish.

Is it? I've seen a couple of your fellow wingnuts call for EXECUTING women who have abortions.

 

[Marener]

Yeah, thats what youre asking me to do. That aint gonna work. It wont work in a court of law either. It takes a single conservative DOJ prosecutor to start an Obama murder trial. Then again, you guys believe we are super nice and would never do anything to weaponize the DOJ, right? Conservatives are WAY too cool to go after YOUR presidents, right?

That conservative DoJ prosecutor would have to build a case for, which would have to include actual evidence, not your ”trust me bro”.

And, considering the classified nature of the program, the need to protect state secrets, and the commander in chief exercising their congressional approved authority by engaging in the war on terrorism, this has no possibility of going anywhere.

I know you guys are trying to use this as some scary counterpoint to reinforce the necessity of this presidential immunity, but for me it changes nothing. I have absolutely no worries about Obama being prosecuted for murder.

 

[Godboy]

That conservative DoJ prosecutor would have to build a case for, which would have to include actual evidence, not your ”trust me bro”.

And, considering the classified nature of the program, the need to protect state secrets, and the commander in chief exercising their congressional approved authority by engaging in the war on terrorism, this has no possibility of going anywhere.

I know you guys are trying to use this as some scary counterpoint to reinforce the necessity of this presidential immunity, but for me it changes nothing. I have absolutely no worries about Obama being prosecuted for murder.

Youre delusional, dude. Wishing upon a star is not an effective strategy. You guys are fucked if this is your best defence. Our weaponized DOJ will steamroll you idiots.

 

[Marener]

Youre delusional, dude. Wishing upon a star is not an effective strategy. You guys are fucked if this is your best defence. Our weaponized DOJ will steamroll you idiots.

Yeah, I’m not worried. Your supposed argument is based entirely on your assumptions based on deep seated partisan bias.

This is all just a weak attempt to convince us of the necessity of presidential immunity. The thing is, none of us ever thought it was necessary before because when we elect presidents, we expect them to understand their legal boundaries and follow them.

Obviously that’s not the case for you guys.

The only interesting thing is that you admit your goal is to weaponize the DoJ, admitting that your intention is to corrupt the government. That’s pretty sad.

 

[Godboy]

Yeah, I’m not worried. Your supposed argument is based entirely on your assumptions based on deep seated partisan bias.

This is all just a weak attempt to convince us of the necessity of presidential immunity. The thing is, none of us ever thought it was necessary before because when we elect presidents, we expect them to understand their legal boundaries and follow them.

Obviously that’s not the case for you guys.

The only interesting thing is that you admit your goal is to weaponize the DoJ, admitting that your intention is to corrupt the government. That’s pretty sad.

Yes, we WILL weaponize the DOJ. You at least got that part right. Turnabout is fair play.