Collusion investigation getting ready for the smackdown

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

What's a rouble?

The word is listed in Webster's. You're letting your basic Box (the mental capacity of a gerbil) show.

I'd never seen ruble spelled that way before, if that's what was meant. And the word could have been a typo that was intended to be something totally different.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd never seen ruble spelled that way before, if that's what was meant. And the word could have been a typo that was intended to be something totally different.

Remains your incapability issue. As I posted, it's listed in Webster's. Not anyone's fault but yours that you don't think or research before knee jerking. If you had any brains you'd stop and give a thought to your inane posting behavior.

 

[Hypoxia]

What's a rouble?

A: Russian currency.

Q: What's a semitone?
A: Two oboes playing in unison.

Q: Why is a bassoon better than an oboe?
A: It burns longer.

See, many questions can be answered by googling.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Why do people keep comparing Benghazi to the witch hunt now in progress? The two have nothing in common.

In Benghazi, something very bad happened and blame had to be placed. The Obama administration bungled and looked bad, especially the Sec of State. Since there was an election less that two months later, they began lying like mad to deceive the voters. It worked and Obama was reelected. I still remember Hillary Clinton waving her arms around and asking "Who cares?" Eventually, the truth of her incompetence came out but, by then, the election had been won by the liars.

In the witch hunt now going on, no evidence of any wrong-doing by the object of the hunt has ever been made public, not even after a year and a half. There may have been something, but it has not been made public yet. In fact, the only chicanery noted was on the part of the people who instigated the witch hunt. There has been another election, and that incompetent former secretary lost, so her minions immediately began trying to change the results. I said she lost, not Trump won, if you get the distinction.

So Box, what factual information did 9 congressional investigations which including Clinton testifying before congress, produce proving either intentional or unintentional action by Clinton resulted in the Benghazi deaths?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I suppose if you were important enough for some reason, you'd be told how the investigation is going. You're not important enough and aren't involved as anything

And neither are you.

but a dogmatic apologist,

Said the (D)ogmatic apologist.....as long as it's (D)!!!

so they apparently are going to let you wait like the rest of us.

No shit Sherlock.

While you wait, feel free to sweat.

Sweat over what?



How many times must I tell you, not being a blindly partisan DNC fan boy or dumb enough to be part of the "OMG TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER!!!" morons doesn't make me a Trump supporter.

 

[sr71plt]

And yet, you're among those who sweat all over the board about the Russian investigation, BB, and what it hasn't personally proven to you yet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And yet, you're among those who sweat all over the board about the Russian investigation, BB, and what it hasn't personally proven to you yet.

No, I'm not.

The closest I get to it is here on lit making fun of people assuming (or desperate to assume) one thing or another with the investigation based on nothing but their feelings about Trump.

You follow it far closer than I do champ, try again.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yet you follow it close enough to assert we base our opinions only on prejudice? How would you know if you don't follow it closely?

I don't know if there's enough to nail Trump on collusion YET. Maybe maybe not. There's more than enough to nail him for obstruction of justice

No, I'm not.

The closest I get to it is here on lit making fun of people assuming (or desperate to assume) one thing or another with the investigation based on nothing but their feelings about Trump.

You follow it far closer than I do champ, try again.

 

[sr71plt]

BB lives and breathes this stuff. Obama and Hillary still have him sucking his thumb in terror.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yet you follow it close enough to assert we base our opinions only on prejudice? How would you know if you don't follow it closely?

I don't know if there's enough to nail Trump on collusion YET. Maybe maybe not. There's more than enough to nail him for obstruction of justice

What was the obstruction of justice? I think I know, but I want to read the opinions of others.

 

[sr71plt]

What was the obstruction of justice? I think I know, but I want to read the opinions of others.

I doubt anyone wants to take on an attempt to teach you anything. You could research it yourself--easily--if you had the will to do so. You don't. All you want to do is to use the time and energy in others in your playing dumb performance art.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I doubt anyone wants to take on an attempt to teach you anything. You could research it yourself--easily--if you had the will to do so. You don't. All you want to do is to use the time and energy in others in your playing dumb performance art.

I'm assuming it was the firing of James Comey. In itself this was nothing, since Comey was not a civil servant, but the reason might be relevant. If Trump fired him over the way he handled the kid-gloved investigation of Hillary Clinton, I believe the firing would be justified or, at least, not an impeachable offense.

However, if Comey was fired because of his investigation of possible collusion, there might have been some wrongdoing. However, if he was wasting his time on a strictly dead end, and should have known it by then, then the firing for incompetence would have been justified.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yet you follow it close enough to assert we base our opinions only on prejudice? How would you know if you don't follow it closely?

Because I follow you....your partisanship is totally irrelevant to the details on any investigation into Trump.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. You're an ignorant fraud who follows "us," not what's going on in the world. Therefore, we own you.

Besides that, it's a nonsensical response.

1. Newsflash: Neither me, nor Pilot, nor anyone else you want to call a partisan hack is conducting the Investigations. Apparently your obsession with what we think has led you to believe we're in political power. We're not. We merely comment on free chat boards.

ROBERT MUELLER is leading an investigation, not us. MUELLER is a Republican, as is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him to do it. Two Committees in the House and Senate (led by Rs) are conducting their own investigations. It's Rs investigating the potential criminality of their own R President, you dumb shit. So if we're "supporting" it, what does that make us?

2. Related to that, who said Trump is some kind of R? He spends half his time attacking Rs. I fully support him in this endeavor. Why would I want him brought down for partisan reasons, when he's doing a great job of destroying the R Party?

3. Any recourse to the FACTS of the investigation would be useless to cite, since you know absolutely nothing.

Because I follow you....your partisanship is totally irrelevant to the details on any investigation into Trump.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

1. Off the top of my head: firing Comey to stop him looking into his own criminality (and that of his friends, like Flynn). As he stated openly to Lester Holt. It was because of "this Russia thing," NOT, as he originally stated, because of how Comey handled the Clinton Investigation. He admitted obstruction right there.

2. Pressuring House and Senate members to end the investigations. That's an attempt at obstruction.

3. Asking Comey to "let Flynn go" when he knew Flynn had committed a crime (admitted in a Tweet Dec. 5):

f Trump knew that Flynn lied to the FBI, then pressured former FBI Director James Comey to not prosecute Flynn, then fired Comey after he did not comply, this is powerful and probative evidence of obstruction of justice.

4. Calling Mike Rogers and Dan Coates and likewise asking them to "do something" about the investigations. That's an attempt at obstruction.

5. Attempting to intimidate and threaten witnesses against him on Twitter.

6. Conspiring to cover up : a.) his reasons for firing Comey and b.) the nature of Don, Jr.'s meeting with Russian operatives in Trump tower. In one case he left a paper trail (a draft letter made up in Westminster), and in the other he left plenty of witnesses on AF One who were there when he drafted the phony excuse offered by Don, Jr. All shows consciousness of guilt.

7. Continually attacking the FBI, and/or firing anyone who threatens him

Trump did not merely attack Comey. He attacked the institution of the FBI itself. He attacked the work, independence and credibility of the FBI. He seeks to pressure the FBI to go easy on him or to preemptively discredit the FBI itself while it investigates the Russia scandal.

Trump repeatedly attacks institutions of justice and law enforcement in ways that bear an eerie similarity to the articles of impeachment against Nixon passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, which condemned Nixon’s abuses of the Justice Department, FBI and CIA.*

Trump has persistently attacked, sought to intimidate and discredit or fire those investigating the Russia scandal.*

Trump promised to retain, and then fired, former New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. He courted, tried to influence and then fired former FBI Director Comey.
He fired former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she warned the White House that Flynn’s lying had subjected him to potential blackmail by Russia.*He harshly criticized and suggested he might fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions, using the same tactic he now directs against the FBI.

While the CIA was investigating and countering a Russian cyberattack against America that continues today, Trump compared the CIA to Nazi Germany, with comments that would have been cheered by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his operatives who attack America.

One by one, Trump has attacked, condemned, threatened and sought to discredit institutions of government that are investigating, exposing and countering the Russian attacks that are the subject of the investigations

I'm assuming it was the firing of James Comey. In itself this was nothing, since Comey was not a civil servant, but the reason might be relevant. If Trump fired him over the way he handled the kid-gloved investigation of Hillary Clinton, I believe the firing would be justified or, at least, not an impeachable offense.

However, if Comey was fired because of his investigation of possible collusion, there might have been some wrongdoing. However, if he was wasting his time on a strictly dead end, and should have known it by then, then the firing for incompetence would have been justified.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. You're an ignorant fraud who follows "us," not what's going on in the world. Therefore, we own you.

I follow what's going on in the world, just not the mueller investigation.

You don't own shit, you're just another triggered snowflake internet.

Besides that, it's a nonsensical response.

LOL.....only if you can't read.

Which looks like you can't because look at this pile of irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

1. Newsflash: Neither me, nor Pilot, nor anyone else you want to call a partisan hack is conducting the Investigations. Apparently your obsession with what we think has led you to believe we're in political power. We're not. We merely comment on free chat boards.

ROBERT MUELLER is leading an investigation, not us. MUELLER is a Republican, as is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him to do it. Two Committees in the House and Senate (led by Rs) are conducting their own investigations. It's Rs investigating the potential criminality of their own R President, you dumb shit. So if we're "supporting" it, what does that make us?

2. Related to that, who said Trump is some kind of R? He spends half his time attacking Rs. I fully support him in this endeavor. Why would I want him brought down for partisan reasons, when he's doing a great job of destroying the R Party?

3. Any recourse to the FACTS of the investigation would be useless to cite, since you know absolutely nothing.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh yeah, misread your sentence. Everything you say is still crap, like this:

The closest I get to it is here on lit making fun of people assuming (or desperate to assume) one thing or another with the investigation based on nothing but their feelings about Trump.

My question still applies. How would you know?

We can argue the known facts, but as long as you don't know what they are (which you admit), how can you say we're basing our arguments only on our "feelings" about Trump? Easy to say when you don't know what the F you're talking about.

Brush up on the obstruction of justice argument (see above) and get back to us with something other than smears.

 

[mark_j]

Oh yeah, misread your sentence. Everything you say is still crap, like this:



My question still applies. How would you know?

We can argue the known facts, but as long as you don't know what they are (which you admit), how can you say we're basing our arguments only on our "feelings" about Trump? Easy to say when you don't know what the F you're talking about.

Brush up on the obstruction of justice argument (see above) and get back to us with something other than smears.

In other words, you're speculating.

You don't know anything more than the claptrap the news media has been putting out. And it has been shown many times (and I'm not talking about lit arguments here) that the media (depending on which side of the aisle you are on) has nothing.

So beyond the hyperbola and partisan rhetoric, you're doing nothing but blowing shit out your ass.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

LOL

It was "the media" who aired Trump's interview with Lester Holt. His own words.

It was "the media" who broke the story of Flynn's lies (led to him being fired), Sessions' lies (led to his recusal), Trump's true reasons for firing Comey (led to the Special Counsel), Don Jr.'s meeting in Trump Tower (which led to him admitting it and Trump trying to cover up--bad!), the first news of a coming indictment (Manafort showed up in court the next weekday), Flynn's turning on Trump (he pleaded out the next week.)

All stories which broke in "the media." All subsequently verified. And there's plenty more.

Besides, this is just piecemeal reporting on what reporters have managed to squeeze out of the Special Counsel's office. The only thing that truly matters is what MUELLER has.

In other words, you're speculating.

You don't know anything more than the claptrap the news media has been putting out. And it has been shown many times (and I'm not talking about lit arguments here) that the media (depending on which side of the aisle you are on) has nothing.

So beyond the hyperbola and partisan rhetoric, you're doing nothing but blowing shit out your ass.

 

[mark_j]

LOL

It was "the media" who aired Trump's interview with Lester Holt. His own words.

It was "the media" who broke the story of Flynn's lies (led to him being fired), Sessions' lies (led to his recusal), Trump's true reasons for firing Comey (led to the Special Counsel), Don Jr.'s meeting in Trump Tower (which led to him admitting it and Trump trying to cover up--bad!), the first news of a coming indictment (Manafort showed up in court the next weekday), Flynn's turning on Trump (he pleaded out the next week.)

All stories which broke in "the media." All subsequently verified. And there's plenty more.

All of those things you mentioned, which may or may not be dicey, still doesn't amount to anything more than "politics as usual" in D.C.. Process violations from years before Trump even declared candidacy, omitting the mention of a meeting that took place after the Pres was elected (and would not have been illegal anyway). Shit that Flynn and Manafort did A DECADE before this last election.

In other words, piddly assed shit that wouldn't have mattered ONE IOTA in the greater scheme of things or with any other candidate, EXCEPT that these men were involved with Trump.

Yeah you REALLY got him didn't you.

Besides, this is just piecemeal reporting on what reporters have managed to squeeze out of the Special Counsel's office. The only thing that truly matters is what MUELLER has.

Right.

Since YOU DON"T KNOW what he has, anything else is pure speculation. But here you are, hyperventilating over "collusion" day after day.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My question still applies. How would you know?

Because I can observe you.

I don't need to know the details of the investigation to observe you foaming at the mouth with hate for Trump practically every time you post.

We can argue the known facts,

Which you don't have any more of than I do.

Brush up on the obstruction of justice argument (see above) and get back to us with something other than smears.

You mean brush up on what some Trump hating (D) partisans opinion is??

Nah...I'll wait until something other than (D) cheer squad speculation and bullshitting is available.

 

[Hypoxia]

Since YOU DON"T KNOW what he has, anything else is pure speculation. But here you are, hyperventilating over "collusion" day after day.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." IOW, absent leaks from Mueller's office, nobody external has an informed view of what data has been gathered and where it may lead.

We *can* see what has been publically revealed in testimony and admissions. We know Tromp.Com has close financial ties to Russian mafiya figures linked to Putin, and Team Tromp illegally approached Russians to tamper with the US election. Those can't be argued away. For their implications, stay tuned.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You're switching the argument.

I gave many examples refuting your claim that "the media" has "nothing." WRONG.
We have a Special Counsel, indictments, Sessions recused, and Flynn fired and about to spill the beans on Trump BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA. In fact, almost everything that has come out about Trump and Russia IN THE MEDIA has borne out. They've been right on the money.

None of that is politics as usual--unless you're going back to Watergate.

Whatever you want to call it, it's not nothing to Mueller.

I've never said I'm not speculating. That's what normal people do. I'm not claiming to be on the Special Counsel; I'm just speculating.

As for us hyperventilating, LMAO!!!! Benghazi ring a bell? E-mails? The Dirty Dossier?

All of those things you mentioned, which may or may not be dicey, still doesn't amount to anything more than "politics as usual" in D.C.. Process violations from years before Trump even declared candidacy, omitting the mention of a meeting that took place after the Pres was elected (and would not have been illegal anyway). Shit that Flynn and Manafort did A DECADE before this last election.

In other words, piddly assed shit that wouldn't have mattered ONE IOTA in the greater scheme of things or with any other candidate, EXCEPT that these men were involved with Trump.

Yeah you REALLY got him didn't you.



Right.

Since YOU DON"T KNOW what he has, anything else is pure speculation. But here you are, hyperventilating over "collusion" day after day.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

As long as I'm foaming with facts, its all good


QUOTE=BotanyBoy;88508878]Because I can observe you.

I don't need to know the details of the investigation to observe you foaming at the mouth with hate for Trump practically every time you post.

'.[/QUOTE]

 

[KUJACK]

Would be funny if

Hillary gets undited instead of Trump