Smoking Gun In Obama/Trump Spy Case?

[Rightguide]

EXCLUSIVE: Six U.S. Agencies Conspired to Illegally Wiretap Trump; British Intel Used as Front to Spy on Campaign for NSA
Posted on September 20, 2017 by Investigative Bureau

http://truepundit.com/exclusive-six...tel-used-as-front-to-spy-on-campaign-for-nsa/

 

[adrina]

According to conservative logic as applied to HRC, there must be something there to find. Else he wouldn't be under investigation.

Right?

 

[Rightguide]

According to conservative logic as applied to HRC, there must be something there to find. Else he wouldn't be under investigation.

Right?

See the bullet points in the article, that's the gist of it.

http://truepundit.com/exclusive-six...tel-used-as-front-to-spy-on-campaign-for-nsa/

 

[thehaircutgirl]

i'm much more concerned with russians spying on americans than americans spying on americans.

 

[adrina]

source

Home » True Pundit
True Pundit
con4pseudo3
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Though they do occasionally publish a legitimate story, some are conspiracies. This source also currently delivers news straight from the Daily Caller which has a strong right-wing bias. Most articles from True Pundit have anonymous authors. This source has also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy.

 

[Rightguide]

source

Of course, you've isolated and listed the errors and can correct the record, right?

It get's a lot worse than this story.

 

[Rightguide]

i'm much more concerned with russians spying on americans than americans spying on americans.

Of course, you are.

 

[adrina]

Of course, you isolated and the errors and can correct the record, right?

It get's a lot worse than this story.

Why bother? Another rabbit hole. Get me a source that doesn't say "Simply not trustworthy" and it'll be worth my time. Until then what has been presented is fit to line a bird cage.

 

[Rightguide]

Why bother? Another rabbit hole. Get me a source that doesn't say "Simply not trustworthy" and it'll be worth my time. Until then what has been presented is fit to line a bird cage.

We understand you have nothing to offer except your totally disingenuous claim of source trustworthiness, but can't point to a single error in fact apparently based just your liberal superstition.

 

[adrina]

We understand you have nothing to offer except your totally disingenuous claim of source trustworthiness, but can't point to a single error in fact apparently based just your liberal superstition.

Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it.

You read garbage. You spout garbage.

I don't absorb garbage.

If you put up a source rated as nonfactual and untrustworthy it's not my job to go through the garbage and find the one grain of sand.

If you want your claims to be believed, it's your job to put up a source with a reputation for not putting out garbage.

GIGO.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

Of course, you are.

i don't get your eyeroll unless you're not american or not a proud patriot.

 

[cowslinger64]

We understand you have nothing to offer except your totally disingenuous claim of source trustworthiness, but can't point to a single error in fact apparently based just your liberal superstition.

Hypocrite much?

You are the king of spouting bullshit as facts and offering proof of your stupid assertions using whackadoodle sites... Brietbart.. That idiot West you use too.

So fuck off..

 

[Hypoxia]

[redundant post]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

According to conservative logic as applied to HRC, there must be something there to find. Else he wouldn't be under investigation.

Right?

There is somewhat of a difference. Hillary tried to hide and destroy everything whereas Manafort has called for the DOJ to put its cards on the table in order to clear his name.

 

[water505]

We understand you have nothing to offer except your totally disingenuous claim of source trustworthiness, but can't point to a single error in fact apparently based just your liberal superstition.

That’s what Litwits do...attack the source instead of the content. When asked to point out specifically which statements they disagree with they attack the source again.

They’re like little children having a temper tantrum. When you ask what’s wrong they scream louder.

These people have no values, opinions, or facts at hand so they deflect to cover their ignorance and embarrassment. We see it dozens of times a day from the usual suspects.

 

[water505]

Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it.

You read garbage. You spout garbage.

I don't absorb garbage.

If you put up a source rated as nonfactual and untrustworthy it's not my job to go through the garbage and find the one grain of sand.

If you want your claims to be believed, it's your job to put up a source with a reputation for not putting out garbage.

GIGO.

He asked what you disagree with and all you did was deflect. You have a problem.

 

[adrina]

There is somewhat of a difference. Hillary tried to hide and destroy everything whereas Manafort has called for the DOJ to put its cards on the table in order to clear his name.

Revisionist history.

Eleven hours of testimony and multiple calls for the FBI to release everything. Sound familiar?

He asked what you disagree with and all you did was deflect. You have a problem.

When a garbage source is put forth it's not my job to find the truth of anything they say. It's the job of the person that puts forth the garbage to show me where it's not garbage.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Bleachbit...

emails that kept turning up after she turned them all in.


Don't accuse anyone of revision. It really is a sword that cuts both ways.

 

[adrina]

Bleachbit...

emails that kept turning up after she turned them all in.


Don't accuse anyone of revision. It really is a sword that cuts both ways.

Yes the big nothingburger of emails.

Of course it's very convenient to not recognize the actual order of events, the people involved or intent.

Yes revisionist history.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How do you know that there was nothing in the deleted emails? Crystal ball?


In that nothing burger we learned things such as at the same time she was telling the public it was a movie, she was telling Chelsea that it was, indeed, a terrorist attack...

Which reminds us..., Why again was her work server housed in a bathroom hosted by a third-party with no security clearance? Was it to hide the pay-for-play scheme known as the Clinton Foundation?

 

[water505]

Revisionist history.

Eleven hours of testimony and multiple calls for the FBI to release everything. Sound familiar?



When a garbage source is put forth it's not my job to find the truth of anything they say. It's the job of the person that puts forth the garbage to show me where it's not garbage.

You’re totally full of shit. You questioned the source. He asked what you disagreed with, and you can’t answer the question, and both of us know why.

End of story.

Period.

 

[adrina]

You're cute when you're trying to smear. Not really but it's all you've got. Ever. This has been going on now for how many years, how many investigations. And out of all their investigations what exactly did they find. You know how many charges were leveled against her. What indictments were brought down.

Yes the big nothing Burger of emails.

 

[adrina]

You’re totally full of shit. You questioned the source. He asked what you disagreed with, and you can’t answer the question, and both of us know why.

End of story.

Period.

No I didn't question the source. I rejected the source. When it has a rating of untrustworthy and non factual it is not a matter of questioning. If somebody wants to put forth a known source that's garbage it should be rejected. If you are so sure of the truth of this garbage source then find a source that says the same thing that isn't garbage. Reputation matters.

 

[water505]

No I didn't question the source. I rejected the source. When it has a rating of untrustworthy and non factual it is not a matter of questioning. If somebody wants to put forth a known source that's garbage it should be rejected. If you are so sure of the truth of this garbage source then find a source that says the same thing that isn't garbage. Reputation matters.

Did someone break into your account and post under your name? You called it a garbage source.

Congratulations!

You’re today’s first recipient of the Litwit Award.

Lie. Deflect. Deny. Attack the source. Answer a question by asking another question.

You people are a broken record.

 

[water505]

“Adrina, what time is it?”

“I like spaghetti!”