Smoking Gun In Obama/Trump Spy Case?

[adrina]

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.

Why can't you seem to post a source that has a decent reputation that has the same information? Perhaps you get your news from The Enquirer or the World Weekly News. Have you seen Bat Boy lately?

Your embrace and defense of a source that has been widely debunked is not reflective on me. In fact it is the responsibility of any thinking person to reject a source that has been widely debunked. Otherwise you may as well watch soap operas for the news. They're about on par.

 

[water505]

Why can't you seem to post a source that has a decent reputation that has the same information? Perhaps you get your news from The Enquirer or the World Weekly News. Have you seen Bat Boy lately?

Your embrace and defense of a source that has been widely debunked is not reflective on me. In fact it is the responsibility of any thinking person to reject a source that has been widely debunked. Otherwise you may as well watch soap operas for the news. They're about on par.

Deflect much? You’re making a fool of yourself.

Where did I embrace the source? I didn’t, did I? You made it up. You lied.

You make the same noise as Charlie Brown’s teacher....wahwwahwahwah.



Fucking Litwit.

 

[adrina]

Deflect much? You’re making a fool of yourself.

Where did I embrace the source? I didn’t, did I? You made it up. You lied.

You make the same noise as Charlie Brown’s teacher....wahwwahwahwah.



Fucking Litwit.

Once again, and I suggest you read this slowly, as apparently you have basic comprehension issues: It's not my responsibility to prove garbage. It's the job of the person that puts forth the garbage to prove it is not garbage.

You keep hounding me to disprove garbage. You obviously have some stake in the garbage.

If you can't help RG prove it's not garbage, then there is no point to harp on me. They have been analyzed and found to be lying and generally untrustworthy. That's just fact.

If you can't accept that, then it's not a stretch to say you accept the source as legit. Especially since all of your counter arguments include hissy fits and name calling.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A tale of two investigations.

Administration one investigates itself with the understanding that it will



lest the investigation widen into other areas of the administration, even being so bold as to hold a tarmac meeting and having the director of the FBI dedicated to not indicting in anyway, shape or form, and even having the temerity to tell us to our face why there should be an indictment...



Administration two turned the investigation over to the deep state.

adrina approves of both, at the same time!

The investigation to exonerate and the investigation to convict. She is, truly, a team player, if nothing else...



Should I post some more Toby Keith?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes!


This calls for Toby!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjnKzHMT18

 

[adrina]

Deep political philosophy from the "boot in your ass" diplomat.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... and there it is!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldQrapQ4d0Y


Tai hau le!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Toby has an explanation for Liberal thinking:


https://www.vevo.com/watch/toby-kei...002&share_location=ingestion&utm_campaign=ing

 

[Rightguide]

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.

Garbage my ass it's all over the news. The fact that you're uninformed doesn't change the facts of the matter which I posted back in March. This will be the biggest story in the country before the year is out.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

The other fact is Obama and crew were spying on their political opponents for political gain using national security assets. Obtaining at least one FISA warrant by presenting false made up evidence to a federal judge.

 

[Rightguide]

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

My "eyeroll" had to do with your predictably naive and ignorant response.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The other fact is Obama and crew were spying on their political opponents for political gain using national security assets. Obtaining at least one FISA warrant by presenting false made up evidence to a federal judge.

From the article you yourself posted.

President Barack Obama’s White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Also from your article

Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.

 

[phrodeau]

Damn Obama and his rigid enforcement of the law of the land. Thanks to Trump, we won't need to worry about that any more.

 

[Aglaopheme]

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.

He's being very cooperative, so his name will be cleared.


From your favorite, the National Review

As I said at the time, prosecutors do not obtain warrants to toss the homes of people they regard as cooperating witnesses. When they are dealing with cooperators, prosecutors politely request that documents be produced, expecting the witness (and his lawyers) to comply. If some coercion is thought necessary, they will issue a grand-jury subpoena — an enforceable directive to produce documents, but one that still allows the witness to hand over the materials, not have them forcibly seized. The execution of a search warrant, even if it goes smoothly, is a show of force. It is intimidating.

When we first learned of the raid, I also emphasized its timing: predawn. Under federal law, search warrants are supposed to be executed during daytime hours, when agents can be expected to knock on the door, announce their presence and purpose, and be admitted by the occupant of the premises. If investigators want to search a home before 6 a.m., they need permission. To get it, they have to convince the judge that, if the occupant were alerted to the agents’ presence before they entered, it is likely he would destroy evidence or pose a danger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...al-trouble-donald-trump-might-not-be-involved

 

[adrina]

Garbage my ass it's all over the news. The fact that you're uninformed doesn't change the facts of the matter which I posted back in March. This will be the biggest story in the country before the year is out.

Yes. Garbage.

Those pesky details matter. So does truth.

You read garbage. You spew garbage.

 

[BB4evah]

“Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”

 

[Rightguide]

From the article you yourself posted.

Also from your article

The article in question is but a current article referring to evidence that's been in the public domain since last March. The difference today is CNN is now admitting they were in error before and that Trump might be right. Read post #1 in this thread. You can Google articles written Sarah Carter and John Solomon who've been at the forefront breaking this story since day one. They are internationally respected investigative journalists, so don't try telling me they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The article in question is but a current article referring to evidence that's been in the public domain since last March. The difference today is CNN is now admitting they were in error before and that Trump might be right. Read post #1 in this thread. You can Google articles written Sarah Carter and John Solomon who've been at the forefront breaking this story since day one. They are internationally respected investigative journalists, so don't try telling me they don't know what they're talking about.

I've read the article and it contradicts the article of your that I quoted above.

At a dramatic Wednesday news conference, Nunes claimed to have seen evidence that members of the Trump transition team, possibly including the president-elect, were subjected to “incidental surveillance” collection that Nunes characterized as legal but troubling.

We've known that Manafort has been under surveillance for sometime, and we now know he's be told to expect that he'll be indicted.

I see no "smoking gun" that was to emerge within a week of the op tying the surveillance to Obama, quite the opposite, actually.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...t-news-vindicate-trumps-wiretap-claim/540321/

I'll happily read up on a "smoking gun" if you provide one. "Could be" just doesn't cut it.

 

[adrina]

The article in question is but a current article referring to evidence that's been in the public domain since last March. The difference today is CNN is now admitting they were in error before and that Trump might be right. Read post #1 in this thread. You can Google articles written Sarah Carter and John Solomon who've been at the forefront breaking this story since day one. They are internationally respected investigative journalists, so don't try telling me they don't know what they're talking about.

The garbage you posted at the top of page 4 is from truepundit.com and written by their "investigative bureau".

Truepundit.com is garbage. Non-factual and untrustworthy. This isn't rocket science. You are trying to pass off sensationalist horse pucky as journalism.

Your lack of integrity is showing very clearly. As well as your penchant for believing anything that fits your internal narrative regardless of accuracy or truth.

Aglaopheme already addressed the rest of your wishful thinking.

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's see: Mr Obama, wielding the immense power of the US Presidency, had his (and Hillary's) political opponents wiretapped before and during the campaign -- but then couldn't find or manufacture anything to use? Failure, and victory for Tromp! What the fuck kind of conspiracy theory is that? And Obama couldn't keep his FBI director in line -- what kind of POWER is that? If such presidential power can't do doodley-squat, why would anyone want the job?

A reminder from Robert Anton Wilson: Tracking conspiracy theories causes insanity.

 

[Comshaw]

I've read the article and it contradicts the article of your that I quoted above.



We've known that Manafort has been under surveillance for sometime, and we now know he's be told to expect that he'll be indicted.

I see no "smoking gun" that was to emerge within a week of the op tying the surveillance to Obama, quite the opposite, actually.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...t-news-vindicate-trumps-wiretap-claim/540321/

I'll happily read up on a "smoking gun" if you provide one. "Could be" just doesn't cut it.

Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/mueller-trump-russia.html

Hmmmmmmmmm.......but....but....but....but.....Obama!!!!



Comshaw

 

[thehaircutgirl]

My "eyeroll" had to do with your predictably naive and ignorant response.

I kinda feel sorry for you.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/mueller-trump-russia.html

Hmmmmmmmmm.......but....but....but....but.....Obama!!!!



Comshaw

The Post has a good piece on this as well. That reminds me, I wanted to go rewatch the two Spicer press briefings Mueller is focusing on.

 

[water505]

Once again, and I suggest you read this slowly, as apparently you have basic comprehension issues: It's not my responsibility to prove garbage. It's the job of the person that puts forth the garbage to prove it is not garbage.

You keep hounding me to disprove garbage. You obviously have some stake in the garbage.

If you can't help RG prove it's not garbage, then there is no point to harp on me. They have been analyzed and found to be lying and generally untrustworthy. That's just fact.

If you can't accept that, then it's not a stretch to say you accept the source as legit. Especially since all of your counter arguments include hissy fits and name calling.

You should consider anger management. It might make life easier and reduce your self-induced stress and crankiness. Not to mention cloudy thinking, because right now you’re out of your fucking mind.

I haven’t asked you to prove or disprove one damn thing. You attacked his source and went totally ballistic when he asked why you didn’t agree with it. You didn’t answer, and when I pointed that out you went off the rails, crashed, an burned.

Get some help before you implode. You’re nuts.