Rest went to Stormy.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Lol cite one piece of evidence that was known before the investigation began that trump colluded with russians. And go.
Now, cite one that has came up from the investigation. And go.
Youre not even worth replying to..but humor me.
True. Diversity mantra is a mantra to pit groups against each other for not having enough of this or that or whatever.
John LegendVerified account@johnlegend
And we should particularly interrogate the role of American policy in helping to make MS-13 the organization it is now.
5:55 PM - 17 May 2018
"Lastly, I'm a well educated, well read individual who comes upon my stances on matters by looking at all sides. I don't stay in my little echo chamber and just listen to the bots that will tell me what I want to hear. I've been around the block and around the world several times so I have a pretty good perspective on things. Pardon me if I laugh at your characterization of me or my politics."
This reeks of arrogance and comedy. The epitome of the left and the reason why they are losing ground. You guys have no real world intelligence, you have that which the left has given you to know and understand outside of the real world.
This reeks of arrogance and comedy. The epitome of the left and the reason why they are losing ground. You guys have no real world intelligence, you have that which the left has given you to know and understand outside of the real world.
I don't really considered posting lame ass memes on Facebook interfering.
If something like this persuaded anyone to vote against Hillary, then they were never going to vote for Hillary anyways.
The most hilarious aspect of the latest treatise from Fuzz? He describes himself as an individual who "comes upon stances on matters by looking at all sides"? Yes, that's Fuzz, alright, Mr. Objective! Yes, Fuzz certainly is well-known for looking at both sides of an issue, including the right-wing side. LOL! He's as guilty as anyone on this site of reflexively and invariably taking whatever position that supports "his team", but the astonishing thing is, unlike other people, I honestly believe that he genuinely doesn't realize that he does it. I actually believe that this partisan zealot genuinely considers himself to be as he describes himself, one who "comes upon stances by looking at both sides".
Actually it's been proven that Mueller, Obama, and Hillary colluded with Russia. Gonna be a bitter sweet memory when it happens that you'll never see a liberal on here again posting.
Go ahead. Will find Obama's border leniency to be the root cause.
You know who else are great Americans that liberal media needs to admire?
Bloods, Crips, LA Kings, and the Lucerne Street Doggz.
Bloods, Crips, LA Kings, and the Lucerne Street Doggz.
Great start for sub human disgusting 3rd world vermin muslims during RAMMMMADAN
Non political post. This dog was cracking me up.
Trump needs to tell Mueller to f$$k off. Can only hurt Trump and no way it helps him. I know Trump is arrogant enough to think he can have his way, but it is too dangerous. Mueller got nothing. That is only reason he wants to interview Trump, hoping to catch Trump in a lie.
This animals quote that was intentionally and obviously misrepresented to the American public is exactly why trump won.
When the truth came out, they all look like the moron far left cheerleaders they really are.
When the truth came out, they all look like the moron far left cheerleaders they really are.
Haven't heard from far left popovich in awhile. I love all his elitist nonsense hypocrisy he spouts off Everytime he has a mic.
Oh you're so into equality and women's rights?
Why doesn't every spurs player get equal playing time? Or better yet - why don't you have a woman on the team?
Oh? You're trying to win so you play the best players? The ones who produce the most and have the most talent?
Welcome to capitalism hypocritical a$$hat.
Oh you're so into equality and women's rights?
Why doesn't every spurs player get equal playing time? Or better yet - why don't you have a woman on the team?
Oh? You're trying to win so you play the best players? The ones who produce the most and have the most talent?
Welcome to capitalism hypocritical a$$hat.
I seriously think Trump could put out a tweet that says "I am against suicide" and 50% of liberals would kill themselves just to spite Trump.
That's actually a pretty good idea on second thought.
That's actually a pretty good idea on second thought.
Was Trump’s Campaign ‘Set Up’?
At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes provided a potentially explosive hint at what’s driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump-Russia probe. “If the campaign was somehow set up,” he told the hosts, “I think that would be a problem.”
Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government “officials” acknowledged that the bureau had used “at least one” human “informant” to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau—and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there’s more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes’s “set up” comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI’s actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands—one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials—all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI—and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected—and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee’s recent Russia report. In “late spring” of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House “National Security Council Principals” that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here’s what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members—Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge—right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes’s committee seems to be investigating is what other moments—if any—were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring—all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It’s long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that’s the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer—whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery—Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its “top secret” source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes provided a potentially explosive hint at what’s driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump-Russia probe. “If the campaign was somehow set up,” he told the hosts, “I think that would be a problem.”
Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government “officials” acknowledged that the bureau had used “at least one” human “informant” to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau—and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there’s more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes’s “set up” comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI’s actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands—one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials—all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI—and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected—and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee’s recent Russia report. In “late spring” of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House “National Security Council Principals” that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here’s what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members—Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge—right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes’s committee seems to be investigating is what other moments—if any—were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring—all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It’s long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that’s the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer—whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery—Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its “top secret” source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
The same @fuzz77 who thinks mueller retained all the power of the attorney general claims hes well educated?
Lol.. gtfoh.
Go commit insurance fraud again and use the proceeds to pay your bets.
Lol.. gtfoh.
Go commit insurance fraud again and use the proceeds to pay your bets.
Last edited:
Triggered. Nice. You’re on some super dope shit if you think all those people are “looking for a better life”. If I knew every individual trying to cross the border was doing so for a good reason, then yeah, that would be different. But tons of them are looking for that better life through hand outs promised by liberal politicians just for getting here. A good number are gang members and drug dealers looking to expand territory. We have sanctuary cities where morons like yourself help murderers out the back door just because they weren’t born in America. There’s a vetting process for a reason. We can’t help it if an asshole is born here, but any sane person doesn’t want you letting an asshole in that wasn’t here before. I bet you’d open your door to anyone and everyone that is needy, right? But then again I’m not dumb enough to bet on anything with you.
Liberals have mind f***** blacks. We had a long period of time where people were fighting for equality just so whites and blacks could drink from the same fountain... and now we have people wanting to segregate again in colleges and if they can’t, it’s racist. They’ve got them seeing victim in everything. Everything is racist. It’s pathetic. You never answered how liberal cities have improved the lives of the black communities within. How are things better? Spoiler: they aren’t. Sorry if you’re too blind to see how your party has used a big portion of the black population for decades now.
Anyone that starts touting how “well educated” they are is an immediate sign of lacking common sense and not being as smart as you think you are. The way you talk, you probably think the only path to being well educated is through college. And echo chamber? lol, everyday for the last 8 years was nothing but a liberal echo chamber. Redneck? I figured such labeling terms were beneath such a well rounded and woke individual as yourself.
Next time you decide to travel the world to expand your horizons even further than anyone humanly thought possible, do us all a favor and stay wherever you go.
The silly liberal never looks at all those newborns and thinks...it’s legal for mothers to kill all these babies even late into the pregnancy if they so choose. Seriously, the reaction by liberals to Trump calling the most sadistic gang on the planet “animals” has been the saddest/most amusing thing.
The media tried to lie and take it out of context to make it look like he was calling every illegal an animal...and then we get dozens of liberals objecting to calling gang members who rip out hearts and cut out eyes...’animals’
Last edited:
To work at MSNBC is to be dumber than dog sh-t.
Last edited:
If you read that article he said, "I believe we should have an elected head of state. I love the Queen, she’s hard-working and a lovely person – but the system is outdated. I wouldn’t even do a toast to the Queen. I can’t please everyone. I will stick to my own principles."
So now us red-blooded Constitution lovers are supposed to be offended that someone called for a democratically elected head of state rather than a monarch? Why would that be? Oh right cause he's a black Muslim talking about a white woman.
Re-read the first sentence to your second paragraph...c’mon you can’t be that dumb.
Last edited:
No one is offended, except for maybe the British who love their queen. It's purpose here is to just point out the absurdity and nonsense of it all.
In England they do have queen, and how they choose, and have chosen, to run their government is of no concern of mine. It's sort of like the equivalent to an elected official here refusing to toast George Washington. Regardless of color, I'd say that guy was an idiot, too.
Also, it has nothing to do with him being black or Muslim. Get a f***ing grip. No one is above criticism. I have just as much of a right to my opinion as he does his. He can have his opinion about the Queen but I can also criticize that opinion, regardless of his color and/or religion. That's free speech, not racism.
You're the worst of the worse. The type who sees race in everything. You know what that makes you? Yep, a racist.
Case in point, @bwls2. Part of a designated protected class. Regardless of what they say and/or do, you must sit back and accept it. Those are the rules. You can't challenge and/or criticize; otherwise, you're a racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, blah, blah, blah.
These are the type of backwards, regressive imbeciles who have hijacked the 'progressive' ideology. They're insufferable and are running normal folks off in droves.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
"Evidence that a 9 game schedule is on the horizon "
- Latest: UKWildcats1987
-
