titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted March 13, 2018 Right on all counts. When you see wing nuts like Slo Hag continue on like this, you get a better understating how idealogy like communism and the Nazis came about. Pure obedience. Like a trained hound. Woof woof Jesus Christ. Be careful what you call the kettle there pot. Is sho biased? Sure. Do you really think all of you that he argues with all day are any different? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,997 Posted March 13, 2018 Jesus Christ. Be careful what you call the kettle there pot. Is sho biased? Sure. Do you really think all of you that he argues with all day are any different? So you assert that the people who voted for Trump are adhering to an ideology? I'd say it's quite the opposite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 13, 2018 Technically, that's the same point as what the Democrats are claiming, they're saying that Nunes hasn't looked at all the evidence he should. Quick follow-up for you: who is leading the investigation for the House Intel GOP? that was my point suddenly the hacks at CNN, liberals like snuff and yourself care about the investigation process! You dont get to! You used up that card, precedent set! WTF Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Get it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 that was my point suddenly the hacks at CNN, liberals like snuff and yourself care about the investigation process! You dont get to! You used up that card, precedent set! WTF Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Get it? I'm not sure what you're pointing to, I just tried to agree with you on Nunes following process on the specific point of drafting his report before hearing all evidence. Lewandowski was just interviewed on March 8th, Thursday, Nunes began writing his 150 page report well before then. I'm just saying we both seem to agree that is appropriate whereas before we did not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,997 Posted March 13, 2018 I'm not sure what you're pointing to, I just tried to agree with you on Nunes following process on the specific point of drafting his report before hearing all evidence. Lewandowski was just interviewed on March 8th, Thursday, Nunes began writing his 150 page report well before then. I'm just saying we both seem to agree that is appropriate whereas before we did not. See, you're a hack, so you don't/didn't care about all the obvious obstruction that went on during the Hillary investigation. Thats the point he's making. Hacks rarely see these thing though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 See, you're a hack, so you don't care about all the obvious obstruction that went on during the Hillary investigation. Thats the point he's making. Hacks rarely see these thing though. I've been consistent in saying the FBI acted appropriately in starting their memo before completing hearing evidence in the Hillary case as well. That whole argument that memos can't be started or conclusions reached pending final interviews was always absurd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,997 Posted March 13, 2018 I've been consistent in saying the FBI acted appropriately in starting their memo before completing hearing evidence in the Hillary case as well. That whole argument that memos can't be started or conclusions reached pending final interviews was always absurd. So that's the only problem you see? Hack on, hacky Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 So that's the only problem you see? Hack on, hacky I didn't even mention a problem, I said they were *both* appropriate in that specific regard. I didn't even criticize Nunes on that specific point. Accept the handshake of agreement here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 13, 2018 I've been consistent in saying the FBI acted appropriately in starting their memo before completing hearing evidence in the Hillary case as well. That whole argument that memos can't be started or conclusions reached pending final interviews was always absurd.did they act appropriate in granting immunity to key witnesses before interviewing them ? By not having Hillary give sworn testimony or recording her interview. I was pointing out the blatant laughable hypocrisy of the media complaining about how the house investigation went down. It's not even close to the scam that was portrayed as an investigation into Hillarys crimes. Real crimes, that she committed knowingly and on purpose. Not trumped up manufactured conspiracy theories on who Putin wanted to win. Focking nonsense. Do you see the difference in the media's and hacks around here scrutiny or lack there of ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 13, 2018 that was my point suddenly the hacks at CNN, liberals like snuff and yourself care about the investigation process! You dont get to! You used up that card, precedent set! WTF Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Get it? I get you dont understand hypocrisy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 13, 2018 did they act appropriate in granting immunity to key witnesses before interviewing them ? By not having Hillary give sworn testimony or recording her interview. I was pointing out the blatant laughable hypocrisy of the media complaining about how the house investigation went down. It's not even close to the scam that was portrayed as an investigation into Hillarys crimes. Real crimes, that she committed knowingly and on purpose. Not trumped up manufactured conspiracy theories on who Putin wanted to win. Focking nonsense. Do you see the difference in the media's and hacks around here scrutiny or lack there of ? Nonsense is this bogus comparison of multiple investigations by the FBI to a summary of a draft report put out by the Republican side of the House Intel committee. How you two cal others hacks but support this garbage is laughable and shows how bought in to the Trump cult you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted March 13, 2018 Hypocrisy. Is that like one side paying a foreign agent to get dirt on a political candidate from the Russians, and justifying it by laying accusations against the other? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 What is required to appoint a Special Counsel? Clear evidence of a crime. Trump can fire anyone in the Executive Branch, right? So Comey's firing for any reason is lawful (especially given the fact the Muh Russia Investigation was opened illegally). Why was Special Counsel appointed without clear evidence of a crime? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 13, 2018 Hypocrisy. Is that like one side paying a foreign agent to get dirt on a political candidate from the Russians, and justifying it by laying accusations against the other? If only it was all the same. Like one side meeting with actual Russian officials and then lying about it...also the possibility of offering concessions (like easing sanction...you know...like refusing to impose congressionally approved sanctions?) and other possible favorable treatment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lickin_starfish 1,897 Posted March 13, 2018 ...also the possibility of offering concessions (like easing sanction...you know...like refusing to impose congressionally approved sanctions?) and other possible favorable treatment. Yeah, like being more flexible after the election. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 How ANYONE can say the FBI acted accordingly in the HRC email investigation is beyond reason. FFS, when you hand out immunity it's with the understanding you have to give them someone up the chain. In this case, nope. Mills, Abedin were allowed to lie, destroy evidence, etc..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lickin_starfish 1,897 Posted March 13, 2018 Go ahead and smash your phones, wipe your servers, and destroy subpoenaed evidence. We've already written the letter of absolution. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 13, 2018 Yeah, like being more flexible after the election.As sitting President saying he would be more flexible. Yeah...that compares to absolutely nothing. Find those Obama crimes you claimed were apparent yet? You keep avoiding that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted March 13, 2018 If only it was all the same. Like one side meeting with actual Russian officials and then lying about it...also the possibility of offering concessions (like easing sanction...you know...like refusing to impose congressionally approved sanctions?) and other possible favorable treatment. One side meeting and lying is a stretch. One side covertly hiring an agent through an intermediary is a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted March 13, 2018 Sho 1 & Sho 2 on full tilt LOL. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted March 13, 2018 Asitring Otesident saying he would be more flexible. Yeah...that compares to absolutely nothing. Find those Ibama crimes you claimed were apparent yet? You keep avoiding that. What the Fock are you saying? Don't medicate before posting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 13, 2018 One side meeting and lying is a stretch. One side covertly hiring an agent through an intermediary is a fact. A stretch? There are multiple confirmed meetings that were lied about. That isnt a stretch...its undenialble fact. Hiring Steele is in no way illegal...the others and possible offers of favorable treatment is what led to special counsel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/13/busted-former-director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-lies-during-cnn-broadcast/ As suspected, Clapper was in on the leaking. CTH has copy where he even calls the leaks a threat to National Security. The focking balls on this guy........ And this is who Sho, Newbs, Honcho, etc....all say is the guy they believe. FFS..............Clown show touring with Spice Girls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 did they act appropriate in granting immunity to key witnesses before interviewing them ? By not having Hillary give sworn testimony or recording her interview. I was pointing out the blatant laughable hypocrisy of the media complaining about how the house investigation went down. It's not even close to the scam that was portrayed as an investigation into Hillarys crimes. Real crimes, that she committed knowingly and on purpose. Not trumped up manufactured conspiracy theories on who Putin wanted to win. Focking nonsense. Do you see the difference in the media's and hacks around here scrutiny or lack there of ? And I'm saying that you and the Democrats are making the same arguments. Disagreements are not hypocrisy. You're not being hypocritical here either. If the Democrats argue that Nunes is improperly excluding evidence and if you argue that the FBI improperly left out evidence that doesn't make either of you hypocritical. That's my only point here, disagreements are not in and of themselves "hypocritical". You're certainly free to argue that the FBI improperly excluded evidence for Hillary while saying that Nunes interviewed everyone he could and collected all the data he could. I wouldn't agree with that but again I wouldn't call that hypocritical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted March 13, 2018 And I'm saying that you and the Democrats are making the same arguments. Disagreements are not hypocrisy. You're not being hypocritical here either. If the Democrats argue that Nunes is improperly excluding evidence and if you argue that the FBI improperly left out evidence that doesn't make either of you hypocritical. That's my only point here, disagreements are not in and of themselves "hypocritical". You're certainly free to argue that the FBI improperly excluded evidence for Hillary while saying that Nunes interviewed everyone he could and collected all the data he could. I wouldn't agree with that but again I wouldn't call that hypocritical. word games lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 Go ahead and smash your phones, wipe your servers, and destroy subpoenaed evidence. We've already written the letter of absolution. FYI Nunes didn't start writing his report Thursday, he must have started it weeks ago. That's totally appropriate even though he hadn't heard all the evidence, right? Everyone agree with this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 word games lol Don't get mad at me because I told Dro he's not being hypocritical. You should reach agreements where you can. As a matter of principle it's ok for investigators to start writing reports and reaching conclusions before all evidence collection is finished. Agreed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted March 13, 2018 Don't get mad at me because I told Dro he's not being hypocritical. You should reach agreements where you can. As a matter of principle it's ok for investigators to start writing reports and reaching conclusions before all evidence collection is finished. Agreed?No collusion between Trump campaign and Russians. Agree? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 FYI Nunes didn't start writing his report Thursday, he must have started it weeks ago. That's totally appropriate even though he hadn't heard all the evidence, right? Everyone agree with this? It's been apparent for months now that there wasn't any collusion. All the Dems except Schifforbrains has been saying just that "No evidence of collusion". Schiff himself is a lying leaker who has failed to back up even the most simplest of his challenges. So no, I don't agree because this could have been shut down quite some time ago when found out it was all just Hillary and Obama's charade. Strzok and/or Comey found Gross Negligence before even interviewing the witnesses but ratcheted that back to keep Hillary in the race. The MYE Strzok speaks of in his texts to Page bear that out. You're losing whatever integrity you have left trying to paint the FBI creating the final exoneration letter before interviewing Mills/Abedin/HRC as legit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 No collusion between Trump campaign and Russians. Agree? That wouldn't be an agreement in principle. An agreement in principle would be that Americans colluding with a foreign adversary for influencing policy or elections would be a crime. I'm sure we agree on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 It's been apparent for months now that there wasn't any collusion. All the Dems except Schifforbrains has been saying just that "No evidence of collusion". Schiff himself is a lying leaker who has failed to back up even the most simplest of his challenges. So no, I don't agree because this could have been shut down quite some time ago when found out it was all just Hillary and Obama's charade. Strzok and/or Comey found Gross Negligence before even interviewing the witnesses but ratcheted that back to keep Hillary in the race. The MYE Strzok speaks of in his texts to Page bear that out. You're losing whatever integrity you have left trying to paint the FBI creating the final exoneration letter before interviewing Mills/Abedin/HRC as legit. You don't even think Nunes was right to start writing his report weeks ago before even hearing several witnesses? Can we agree on that point? Process-wise I see nothing wrong with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted March 13, 2018 That wouldn't be an agreement in principle. An agreement in principle would be that Americans colluding with a foreign adversary for influencing policy or elections would be a crime. I'm sure we agree on that.Word games lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 Word games lol. Well it's a start. I think the key is trying to understand what words mean in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 You don't even think Nunes was right to start writing his report weeks ago before even hearing several witnesses? Can we agree on that point? Process-wise I see nothing wrong with that. There's a difference between notes and a report. I'm referring to your assertion that Nunes report and the FBI's exoneration memo can be compared. The FBI knew she broke the law BEFORE they even interviewed witnesses hence the initial draft containing the words Gross Negligence. I don't think there was anything learned in the last few weeks at least in regard to Russia and Trump. Now as far as DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNC/Fusion GPS ............new stuff coming out daily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 There's a difference between notes and a report. I'm referring to your assertion that Nunes report and the FBI's exoneration memo can be compared. The FBI knew she broke the law BEFORE they even interviewed witnesses hence the initial draft containing the words Gross Negligence. I don't think there was anything learned in the last few weeks at least in regard to Russia and Trump. Now as far as DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNC/Fusion GPS ............new stuff coming out daily. You're making arguments about evidence here, not the process. Not even all GOP HSCI members agree on the report's conclusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 You're making arguments about evidence here, not the process. Not even all GOP HSCI members agree on the report's conclusions. Schifforbrains and most if not all of the Democrats will NEVER agree on any conclusions. The process is fact finding and a drawing of conclusions based on facts. The facts don't support Trump/Russian collusion. The only Russians involved are associated with the Hillary Campaign although the HIC report states neither campaign colluded with Russians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 Schifforbrains and most if not all of the Democrats will NEVER agree on any conclusions. The process is fact finding and a drawing of conclusions based on facts. The facts don't support Trump/Russian collusion. The only Russians involved are associated with the Hillary Campaign although the HIC report states neither campaign colluded with Russians. I was talking about Tom Rooney ®. Ok, you can see that I was trying to make the simple point that in certain situations it is ok for an investigator to begin his report and arrive at conclusions before the investigation is over. I've really just invited you to at least see that here with Nunes from your POV without criticizing him or you. But I'll move on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted March 13, 2018 I was talking about Tom Rooney ®. Ok, you can see that I was trying to make the simple point that in certain situations it is ok for an investigator to begin his report and arrive at conclusions before the investigation is over. I've really just invited you to at least see that here with Nunes from your POV without criticizing him or you. But I'll move on. I knew where you were going with it and disagree the two situations are comparable. One is criminal (FBI email investigation) and the other is not. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 420 Posted March 13, 2018 The GOP HSCI has concluded that Russia did hack the DNC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
