Barr testimony

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Let’s not forget why this investigation started, it’s due to Russian interference in our election and while Mueller didn’t find collusion; there was plenty of wrong doing. Even Barr stated previously the FBI should be contacted if a foreign power takes steps to influence an election, did that happen? The FBI knows the Russians are continuing their efforts and what does our president think about it; he believes they will no longer attempt to interfere, gee wiz I wonder why that is. Trump is enabling foreign powers and by his inaction actually encouraging them to ramp it up for 2020, so to me there are far more troubling things about this report and Trumps complete disregard for the facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it had stuck with Russian interference and not wandered off into investigating Trump when there was no concrete evidence that he was involved, and turning it into a political attempt to remove Trump, then we might more effectively have evolved into a solution.

On the other hand, there is probably not a whole lot we can do about Russian meddling. Maybe we could start by not doing our own meddling. Fat chance.

Probably, the best bet is to accomplish an economic community with the rest of the world rather than a political one. That takes agreement rather than war, cyber or otherwise.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

True, the House is just ramping up.

Could they unearth the code red for you Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Let’s not forget why this investigation started, it’s due to Russian interference in our election

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that is incorrect...it was due to leftist hissy fit

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The Russian indictments are significant as they are the first detailed legal cases brought forth from an attack on our democracy that the President has encouraged, lied about and tried to assist Russia in covering up.

you look adorable in tin foil

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Even Barr stated previously the FBI should be contacted if a foreign power takes steps to influence an election, did that happen?

I assume that Obama contacted the FBI, since the meddling started under his administration. Whatever he did certainly didn't do anything to stop it, or even slow it down. I also assume that the FBI is still aware and doing whatever it can.

The FBI knows the Russians are continuing their efforts and what does our president think about it; he believes they will no longer attempt to interfere, gee wiz I wonder why that is.

Has Trump told the FBI to stand down and do nothing about it? I doubt that the FBI will just leave it alone because someone reports that Trump thinks Russia won't continue.

Trump is enabling foreign powers and by his inaction actually encouraging them to ramp it up for 2020, so to me there are far more troubling things about this report and Trumps complete disregard for the facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has not completely disregarded the facts. He may have a bit different idea of what some of the facts are, but overall, there seems to have been some initiatives to interfere with Russian interference. And, certainly the FBI will continue to do the important stuff it needs to do. Overall, it has been reported that Trump has actually been tougher, in all respects, on the Russians than Obama was. Not sure if there has been any "enabling," and if there was, not sure who was the one doing it.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump has not completely disregarded the facts. He may have a bit different idea of what some of the facts are, but overall, there seems to have been some initiatives to interfere with Russian interference. And, certainly the FBI will continue to do the important stuff it needs to do. Overall, it has been reported that Trump has actually been tougher, in all respects, on the Russians than Obama was. Not sure if there has been any "enabling," and if there was, not sure who was the one doing it.

That statement cracks me up, Trump constantly disregards the fact and if the facts staff show him in pretty pictures (he can’t read as you know), they are shown the door. He has put his foot in his mouth so many times over facts he denies or disregards, as the truth comes out and he does the Donnie walk back and his typical distraction ploy to divert attention from his latest BS.

Speaking of BS, if The NY Times reporting is true, I guess Trump isn’t as smart and the art of the deal is how to loose a billion dollars of daddy’s money in ten years. No wonder he is fighting to not release his tax records, his base thinks he is a brilliant businessman, that will be a shock to their reality, that he can do the same magic for America.

Said it before, follow the money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, (for the 73rd time) there's no indictment for collusion. Over 250 contacts with Russians. Every one of those hidden is an incident of collusion.

I think we're up to 700 by the way.

Ahhh... if collusion isn’t a crime, what was the point? for two years, how many in the media predicted indictments? his son and
son in law we’re sure to get indicted!!



oh, 700. and if that many said hilary should have gone to prison, that would mean what to you, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

That statement cracks me up, Trump constantly disregards the fact and if the facts staff show him in pretty pictures (he can’t read as you know), they are shown the door. He has put his foot in his mouth so many times over facts he denies or disregards, as the truth comes out and he does the Donnie walk back and his typical distraction ploy to divert attention from his latest BS.

Speaking of BS, if The NY Times reporting is true, I guess Trump isn’t as smart and the art of the deal is how to loose a billion dollars of daddy’s money in ten years. No wonder he is fighting to not release his tax records, his base thinks he is a brilliant businessman, that will be a shock to their reality, that he can do the same magic for America.

Said it before, follow the money.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

[Sea Dangles]

Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

And you have a mind like a sieve, because apparently you have no recollection of the countless lies and facts brought to light forcing the classic Trump walk back or narrative to change the public view of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

And you have a mind like a sieve, because apparently you have no recollection of the countless lies and facts brought to light forcing the classic Trump walk back or narrative to change the public view of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I recollect the various narratives. I look at results. The negative narratives and positive results don't square.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ahhh... if collusion isn’t a crime, what was the point? for two years, how many in the media predicted indictments? his son and son in law we’re sure to get indicted!!

In the report it basically states the reason Don Jr didn't get indicted was that he was too stupid to realize he was breaking campaign finance laws for his coordination with WikiLeaks. Just because there's no indictment doesn't mean there's not wrongdoing. Read the report.

Remember there are still a dozen outstanding investigations we don't have any visibility to. This is likely one of the big reasons Trump desperate to keep the full report under wraps.

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You have this impressive and colorful way of expressing what seems to be a wealth of knowledge. Ronnie Reagan may have had you in mind when he said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Oh ouch, I, I can't breathe...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Oh ouch, I, I can't breathe...

Are you just being a drama queen . . . or are you actually a closet Trumpian liar.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In the report it basically states the reason Don Jr didn't get indicted was that he was too stupid to realize he was breaking campaign finance laws for his coordination with WikiLeaks.

The reason that he didn't get indicted is that his lack of intent to do so didn't meet the criteria for indictment. That you use that as an occasion to call him stupid demonstrates your politically driven lack of class.

Remember there are still a dozen outstanding investigations we don't have any visibility to. This is likely one of the big reasons Trump desperate to keep the full report under wraps.

Yup, there are a lot of investigations forthcoming. And lots of attempts to keep information under wraps. Of course you seem to give a nod to, and salivate over, only those that may get Trump. But . . . . there are several others that may bring tears to your eyes and dry up your spittle.

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

You might insert here another one of your lengthy and hollow HAHA'S. Who said "this" is all over?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The idea that this is all over is laughable.

Oh, I agree it's not over. The next step is investigating the people who started the hoax, to see if Obama's justice department broke rules by becoming political campaign operatives. It's not over by a long shot, I cannot wait for the next stage, I yearn for the next stage. You might not be as excited as I am, you might want to take a sabbatical to whatever spa you went to after the election.

Do you remember the left's reaction when Trump said his campaign was being spied on? Everyone laughed, everyone called him a liar. How many of those critics have admitted on air, that he was 100% correct? Has a single person done that?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you remember the left's reaction when Trump said his campaign was being spied on? Everyone laughed, everyone called him a liar. How many of those critics have admitted on air, that he was 100% correct? Has a single person done that?

Christopher Wray would disagree that he was spied on, but then again, what does he know...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Christopher Wray would disagree that he was spied on, but then again, what does he know...

Oh FFS Bryan, Wray admitted that there was eavesdropping on the campaign, and we know the FBI inserted undercover operatives to infiltrate the campaign. Wray didn't like the use of the word "spying", is that not splitting hairs?

In your words Bryan, what's the difference between "spying", and what was done to the Trump campaign?

And the Attorney General, I believe, is Christopher Wrays boss, and he did use the term "spying" what does he know...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh FFS Bryan, Wray admitted that there was eavesdropping on the campaign, and we know the FBI inserted undercover operatives to infiltrate the campaign. Wray didn't like the use of the word "spying", is that not splitting hairs?

In your words Bryan, what's the difference between "spying", and what was done to the Trump campaign?

And the Attorney General, I believe, is Christopher Wrays boss, and he did use the term "spying" what does he know...

I would call it an investigation on suspicious contacts between a campaign and a foreign adversary.

As far as Barr, forgive me for distrusting a guy who auditioned in public for this job by writing an unsolicited memo for an audience of one on why president's can't be indicted....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I would call it an investigation on suspicious contacts between a campaign and a foreign adversary.

ok. if the fbi used wiretaps
to eavesdrop on the campaign, and if they used undercover operatives to infiltrate, how is that different from spying?

electronic surveillance isn’t spying?

when you are resorting to suggesting that wiretaps and undercover agents are not the tools
of spying, then you have serious, serious TDS.

i cannot believe you are differentiating between spying and surveillance. this is where rational conversation isn’t possible anymore.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i cannot believe you are differentiating between spying and surveillance. this is where rational conversation isn’t possible anymore.

The Director of the FBI just made a clear public distinction admonishing his boss and his bosses boss in the process.

Perhaps he's got TDS also?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Director of the FBI just made a clear public distinction admonishing his boss and his bosses boss in the process.

Perhaps he's got TDS also?

so how did you conclude who was correct? and how is it not spying?

going off
the rails a bit. when i read
my 12 year olds texts to make sure he’s safe, that’s spying.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so how did you conclude who was correct? and how is it not spying?

going off
the rails a bit. when i read
my 12 year olds texts to make sure he’s safe, that’s spying.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you actually listen to Wray's remarks?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you actually listen to Wray's remarks?

i read that he said
it wasn’t spying. i didn’t see him differentiate between spying and what happened.

did you read my question? I asked YOU why eavesdropping and use of informants, is different from spying. please explain the difference between what they did to trump, and spying?

we’re in the twilight zone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

It's surveillance when "We" do it, it's spying when "They" do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i read that he said
it wasn’t spying. i didn’t see him differentiate between spying and what happened.

did you read my question? I asked YOU why eavesdropping and use of informants, is different from spying. please explain the difference between what they did to trump, and spying?

we’re in the twilight zone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch the full video and report back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Watch the full video and report back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read: you can’t tell me why it wasn’t spying, but you aren’t honest enough to say so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

they love trying to change word meanings out of any historical usage of the word

spying is associated with the word Espionage


surveillance is associated with prevention of crime, or the investigation of crime ya know like a stake out ...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

they love trying to change word meanings out of any historical usage of the word

spying is associated with the word Espionage


surveillance is associated with prevention of crime, or the investigation of crime ya know like a stake out ...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

boy when you put it that way, it makes this look like a stupid argument.

We are literally at a point, where those with TDS, are denying that surveillance and spying are remotely synonymous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device