On Trump?There were many indictments and convictions.
On Trump?There were many indictments and convictions.
No. Just you, and just on this subject.What we've established is that you think anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.
I understand you see things differently. You don't seem to accept that I do.
So I am irrational in disagreeing with you on this subject? Really?No. Just you, and just on this subject.
Your premise is false.
You're too emotional on anything related to Trump. You're not objective, not open to re-evaluating your position or new information, not tolerant of any dissenting viewpoints.So I am irrational in disagreeing with you on this subject? Really?
My opinion is that Durham simply expressed opinions on the investigations into Russian activities and whether or not the FBI should have also been investigating members of the Trump campaign.
Again...the facts do not support his opinions. He equates the Clinton campaign plan to link Trump to Putin and the Russian interference in the election to the possibility that Trump campaign people in any way encouraged the Russian criminal acts.
That makes no sense at all.
You have a way to sense emotions from a text message? No kidding. "Not objective"? I am entirely objective. You think you are capable or re-evaluating your position? I disagree. You have failed to present a credible argument for me to agree with you.You're too emotional on anything related to Trump. You're not objective, not open to re-evaluating your position or new information, not tolerant of any dissenting viewpoints.
You hate Trump. The end, there is no more.
From your history on the subject.You have a way to sense emotions from a text message? No kidding. "Not objective"? I am entirely objective. You think you are capable or re-evaluating your position? I disagree. You have failed to present a credible argument for me to agree with you.
Durham has completely failed to prove any criminal act. His only proof of bias is Strzok's messages about how much he disliked Trump.
What do you think indicates I do not tolerate your viewpoint? I disagree and have posted the reasons why. You have disagreed with my opinions...somehow my disagreement with you gets intolerant responses from you.
Yes, he was president for four years, impeached twice, subject to numerous lawsuits and criminal investigations and is running again.From your history on the subject.
You have started many a Trump thread.
You have joined most if not all Trump threads.
You have tried, more than once, to threadjack threads not about Trump in order to discuss Trump.
There must be a reason.
My first post was in reply to another posters. Subsequent posts were in reply to your posts to me. You initiated this exchange.Yes, he was president for four years, impeached twice, subject to numerous lawsuits and criminal investigations and is running again.
When someone says Biden is the worst president ever, posting about Trump is appropriate. When someone posts that Biden is a crook, it is appropriate to point out a truly corrupt comparison. When someone blames Biden for the chaos of Afghanistan, posting about Trump's surrender to the Taliban and nearly complete withdrawal of our troops, it is not a thread jack.
Every thread where I've brought Trump in was related, closely, to the allegation of an anti-Biden post.
None of your post actually answers my post. In fact, you threadjacked this thread by attempting to make it about me, instead of about Durham's report.
Your post. Was this on topic or did you derail the thread?
it's why I have also pointed out factual inaccuracies in your posts.
It's all good.
My post was on topic. Yours was about me.My first post was in reply to another posters. Subsequent posts were in reply to your posts to me. You initiated this exchange.
As for your obsession with all things Trump. I believe your last point has proved my point on that score. And since I'm not emotional on this topic, I don't even need to bold anything.
Yes - It's all good. Wonderful, in fact. Have a pleasant evening.
My post was on topic. Yours was about me.
It would be funny, if it didn't indicate the end of the American Dream...The Durham Report doesn't really tell us a lot that is new...That the FBI had an agenda, that the investigation into Trump was politically motivated, and that it was specious at best.
I don't doubt that Trump is guilty of a lot of things, but so are many of those who were behind the investigation into him. Which would explain why they fell flat on their face.
It's all rather comical.
The IG is a political hack, not a prosecutor.1. The IG already reported that the Crossfire investigation was well justified. Durham disagrees. So what?
2. Not only did Durham fail to find anything new...he failed to find facts to back up his opinions.
3. So Trump is guilty of a lot of things, but so what...cuz others did the same things? Wow...the logic is impressive.
Who else held up a congressional appropriation to an ally in violation of the legislation that required he notify Congress two weeks in advance of doing it?
Who else has admitted taking boxes of government documents and claimed they were his to keep or that he could declassify documents by thinking it was so?
When has an elected politician called his supporters to stop an electoral process?
Trump is in a category all by himself. His bribe to keep a porn star quiet or having his pal at the National Enquirer buy another scandalous story to keep it quiet is pretty unique. His tax problems and his loss of a rape defamation trial are in a class alone.
No...you cannot excuse his lack of a moral compass by saying that others don't have one either.
Are you suggesting the US doesn't spy on Russia? That is patently absurd.Do you have evidence the US hacked Russian election systems?
By "every credible and knowledgeable source" you mean the US government. Because the only source that knows for sure is Assange and he says it wasn't the Russians. And the only forensic agency with access to the server said they could find no evidence the files had been exfiltrated. You think we should take the feds' word for it. Right, it's not like they ever lied to us before, am I right?They hacked the DNC and every credible and knowledgable source says they delivered the email to Assange. The best you have is...not much.
The FBI used a different standard because there was a crime involved in the hack of the DNC and release of those emails by Wiki.The IG is a political hack, not a prosecutor.
He factually found that the FBI used a different standard for Trump v. Clinton.
Whatever
Good grief! Give it a rest - it was not a big deal.
Apparently everyone
Never (including Trump)
Yet he is still walking around free as a bird...
And Crowdstrike - you know, the only ones who actually had access to the server. Yes, they "broke the (US) law." I suppose you are here to tell us the US has never ever ever broken the laws of any foreign nation. You are a joke! Hell, they even break the laws of our ALLIES! Sheesh!Even if they did not deliver email to Assange...they broke the law.
Meanwhile...Trump said it was probably the Russians. The senate intel committee said it was the Russians.
Who says it wasn't? Putin and Assange...
Crowdstrike said the evidence that the Russians had hacked the DNC was irrefutable.By "every credible and knowledgeable source" you mean the US government. Because the only source that knows for sure is Assange and he says it wasn't the Russians. And the only forensic agency with access to the server said they could find no evidence the files had been exfiltrated. You think we should take the feds' word for it. Right, it's not like they ever lied to us before, am I right?
So you have no evidence we hacked systems in Russia hoping to interfere in their elections. Is it your opinion that if the US did break Russian laws that it makes their crime a non-event?And Crowdstrike - you know, the only ones who actually had access to the server. Yes, they "broke the (US) law." I suppose you are here to tell us the US has never ever ever broken the laws of any foreign nation. You are a joke! Hell, they even break the laws of our ALLIES! Sheesh!
McCabe and Strzok openly talked about stopping Trump, an insurance policy.Then you called Strzok and McCabe “dirty FBI agents”…..And refuse to back it up….Oh what a tangled web we weave…