What's new
By:

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Interesting. I have seen you as hyper-partisan from way back, so much so that I had mostly quit reading your posts, but based on your claims here I will start reading them again to see if you are actually practicing what you are preaching.
Click to expand...

Do you think your perception could have been skewed by partisanship, or victim-hood on your part? Have you considered that maybe because I'm ANY further left than you, you could have misinterpreted that as hyper-partisanship?

Admittedly, I do have some crazy ideas. And have had some crazy ideas. And very easily fall to the left side of the room. That doesn't make me hyper-partisan.
 
One Brow said:
No, I said investigators form hypotheses. I never claimed those texts as such.



I agree that if Strozk's boss knew about the texts, he should have been removed. However, that is not proof of misconduct.
Click to expand...
In Strozk's texts he mentioned wanting to discuss the "media leaking strategy" with that lady who you say caught his eye. As far as I know it has not been proven that strategy was ever actually discussed or implemented by him. But we do know for certain that someone was leaking a lot of information, so I hope that we can agree that if it turns out that Strozk was involved in these leaks in any way that that will be sufficient to prove misconduct.

In reality, I fully expect that if such a piece of evidence does turn up that the Strozk fans will find ways to spin it for all it is worth. I also know that those same people would be crucifying him already if his texts had shown partisanship in the opposite direction.

A separate question: There was a ton of leaking going on, especially when Trump first took office. Is that evidence that someone was performing misconduct to you, or doesn't it matter unless we know exactly who the leakers were? Do you want to know who the leakers were?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Here we go again.

Yes, and it's the same reason that the Dems are trying to interfere with the investigation into why the investigation started, right?
Click to expand...

Haha. Exactly.

Funny how they cant see their own hypocrisy. I legitimately think they actually cant see it. Im not sure its on purpose. Could be, but I dont know.

A good level headed person would admit to such a thing, but I haven't seen one of them do it.
 
It's not true that constitutionally a president cannot be indicted. That is just DOJ policy based on 2 memos, from the 70's during the Nixon fiasco and again in 2000. The Constitution does not explicitly shield the president from indictment.
 
Last edited:
Harambe said:
Do you think your perception could have been skewed by partisanship, or victim-hood on your part? Have you considered that maybe because I'm ANY further left than you, you could have misinterpreted that as hyper-partisanship?

Admittedly, I do have some crazy ideas. And have had some crazy ideas. And very easily fall to the left side of the room. That doesn't make me hyper-partisan.
Click to expand...
I would not consider someone who is slightly left to be hyper-partisan. My recollection is that you were making very far left arguments and insulting the intelligence and ethics of anyone who didn't agree with you. But maybe I misremembered, or maybe you have turned over a new leaf. As I said before, I will read your posts with fresh eyes.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I would not consider someone who is slightly left to be hyper-partisan. My recollection is that you were making very far left arguments and insulting the intelligence and ethics of anyone who didn't agree with you. But maybe I misremembered, or maybe you have turned over a new leaf. As I said before, I will read your posts with fresh eyes.
Click to expand...

There are some points I will stick on. National medical care. Extremists. Enslavement of any type. Environmental concerns.

And there are some ideas I want to fully explore before disregarding; Abortion, Doing something fair with gun restrictions, gerrymandering, basic incomes, national parks.

But in either scenario, some days more than others, I will attempt to make debunked and/or stupid arguments look stupid. And I make no apologies for that.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
In Strozk's texts he mentioned wanting to discuss the "media leaking strategy" with that lady who you say caught his eye. As far as I know it has not been proven that strategy was ever actually discussed or implemented by him. But we do know for certain that someone was leaking a lot of information, so I hope that we can agree that if it turns out that Strozk was involved in these leaks in any way that that will be sufficient to prove misconduct.
Click to expand...

Yes. Not the sort of misconduct that alters the result of an investigation, but definitely misconduct.

Joe Bagadonuts said:
In reality, I fully expect that if such a piece of evidence does turn up that the Strozk fans will find ways to spin it for all it is worth. I also know that those same people would be crucifying him already if his texts had shown partisanship in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

How do you identify "Strozk fans"?

Joe Bagadonuts said:
A separate question: There was a ton of leaking going on, especially when Trump first took office. Is that evidence that someone was performing misconduct to you, or doesn't it matter unless we know exactly who the leakers were? Do you want to know who the leakers were?
Click to expand...

Leaking is against department rules, so is misconduct. On the other hand, leaking is one of the important features to keep governmental actions in check. I'm not a big fan of prosecuting leakers/whistleblowers.
 
One Brow said:
How are the Democrats interfering?
Click to expand...

Wait. You mean to tell me you didn’t see Pelosi’s early morning tweetstorm whining about Bill Barr and his angry team of repubs? And how they’re after a witch hunt Hoax? She wants another infrastructure week but the angry repubs are just obstructionists.

Cmon man, open your eyes.
 
I just want to clarify something, I’m absolutely hateful of the Republican Party and the dimwits who support trump who excuse his treason. How can any warm blooded American not be angry?

For 8 years they treated President Obama horribly. With bigoted attacks on his birth, race, and family. The GOP engaged in unprecedented obstructionism and bad faith arguments regarding judges.

Since then, they’ve become the party of Trump, Putin, and Roy Moore.

I have nothing against conservatives of principles. I can get onboard having a tough foreign policy, reasonable immigration laws, and fiscal discipline. But the GOP doesn’t support that anymore. They’ve abandoned these traditionally conservative principles to serve whatever Trump wants at the moment.

It’s disgusting, deplorable, and is having a detrimental effect domestically, but internationally as well. The sooner this party is destroyed and the return of traditional conservatism, the better.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
How are the Democrats interfering?
Click to expand...
There have been numerous diatribes by liberal commentators against the investigation and against Barr. Brennan has claimed that declassifying info regarding the origins of this investigation will put national security at risk. Bernie and many others have claimed that the whole thing is a diversion and called for it to be shut down. I could go on and on.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
There have been numerous diatribes by liberal commentators against the investigation and against Barr. Brennan has claimed that declassifying info regarding the origins of this investigation will put national security at risk. Bernie and many others have claimed that the whole thing is a diversion and called for it to be shut down. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...

Right, people are talking about it. Got that. The question was, "How are the Democrats interfering?". Surely, you are not claiming talking about an investigation is interfering with it, are you?
 
Catchall said:
Here's Alan Lichtman on CNN --
Click to expand...

The CNN banner is wrong (no surprise).

Lichtman's keys don't predict the winner of the Electoral College, just that of the popular vote. He didn't predict Trump's win in 2016, he did predict Clinton's popular vote victory. His keys are currently predicting Trump will win the popular vote in 2020.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Here we go again.

Yes, and it's the same reason that the Dems are trying to interfere with the investigation into why the investigation started, right?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the "Dems" are doing or why they are doing what they are doing or who the"Dems" even are

Trump was scared though. And acted accordingly. No doubt about it

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top