• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Georgia Criminal Case Against Trump

No, Trump is not a spy, he's a not-so-secret agent.

In case that is confusing, remember, Ian Flemming got the terminology wrong. Bond was a spy.
A secret agent is someone who lives and works in a country, and provides information, typically for money, but sometimes for other favours, to an opposing country.

In Trump's case, he was so obvious about it, it can hardly be called 'secret'.

Edited to add:

One of the things that spies do, is recruit and maintain networks of secret agents.
 
Last edited:
LMAO! Is that really the best you have? A PBS piece dated prior to the unveiling of the Steele dossier as a Democrat funded election tool? This is rich indeed.

I don’t speak MAGA so I can’t really parse what you’re trying to say, but I’m pretty sure none of it changes the fact that a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee determined that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and had numerous contacts with the Trump campaign as part of that effort.
 
LMAO! Is that really the best you have? A PBS piece dated prior to the unveiling of the Steele dossier as a Democrat funded election tool? This is rich indeed.
You seem to have been labouring under a misapprehension...as usual...probably deliberately:
While the [Steele] dossier played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page, it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not the trigger for the opening of the Russia investigation into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
 

LMAO! Is that really the best you have? A PBS piece dated prior to the unveiling of the Steele dossier as a Democrat funded election tool? This is rich indeed.
Rich indeed.

ChrisBFRPKY is telling us he is completely ignorant of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "bipartisan Russia investigation" and its five-volume report. That committee was led by acting chairman Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator from Florida.

With bolding, italics, and links as in the bipartisan committee's official press release of Tuesday, August 18, 2020:
The Committee’s investigation totaled more than three years of investigative activity, more than 200 witness interviews, and more than a million pages of reviewed documents. All five volumes total more than 1300 pages.

You can read “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities” here.

Read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s previous reports:
 
Last edited:
Here's a zen anecdote

The pupil asked the Master, "How may I know truth from untruth?"

The Master replied, "What I want you to believe, consider true."

"But Master," asked the pupil, "how shall I know what is untrue?"

"Everything else is untrue," replied the Master.

The pupil experienced instant enlightenment. Bowing deeply to the Master, he cried, "Thank you profoundly, President Trump!"

"Yeah," replied the Master.
 
The pupil asked the Master, "How may I know truth from untruth?"

The Master replied, "What I want you to believe, consider true."

"But Master," asked the pupil, "how shall I know what is untrue?"

"Everything else is untrue," replied the Master.

The pupil experienced instant enlightenment. Bowing deeply to the Master, he cried, "Thank you profoundly, President Trump!"

"Yeah," replied the Master.

The pupil prostrates himself before the Master saying, "We hear and obey."
 
Last edited:
The pupil asked the Master, "How may I know truth from untruth?"

The Master replied, "What I want you to believe, consider true."

"But Master," asked the pupil, "how shall I know what is untrue?"

"Everything else is untrue," replied the Master.

The pupil experienced instant enlightenment. Bowing deeply to the Master, he cried, "Thank you profoundly, President Trump!"

"Yeah," replied the Master.


“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
 
Rich indeed.

ChrisBFRPKY is telling us he is completely ignorant of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "bipartisan Russia investigation" and its five-volume report. That committee was led by acting chairman Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator from Florida.

With bolding, italics, and links as in the bipartisan committee's official press release of Tuesday, August 18, 2020:

It's almost like you guys are still living in 2020. A lot has happened since then. You know there was another report, some Durham guy. Then it was revealed the Steele Dossier was prepared for and funded by Clinton. You know little things like that make a big difference. You should really get current and move out of 2020 back when you had control of the narrative. Or perhaps that's why you're still stuck in 2020, the good old days before the exposure.
 
I don’t speak MAGA so I can’t really parse what you’re trying to say, but I’m pretty sure none of it changes the fact that a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee determined that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and had numerous contacts with the Trump campaign as part of that effort.

Hillary, is that you?
 
It's almost like you guys are still living in 2020. A lot has happened since then. You know there was another report, some Durham guy. Then it was revealed the Steele Dossier was prepared for and funded by Clinton. You know little things like that make a big difference. You should really get current and move out of 2020 back when you had control of the narrative. Or perhaps that's why you're still stuck in 2020, the good old days before the exposure.
If you had read the reference given, you would have seen that was already specifically mentioned, in context.

Here, look. Since you're so information-adverse, I'll provide a lot more for you and highlight some relevant parts. Think you can stick with it for more than one or two words, hmm?

It was based on information from initially anonymous sources known to the author, counterintelligence specialist Christopher Steele. Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), was writing the report for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS, that was paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The dossier's 17 reports allege that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives had conspired to cooperate in Russia's election interference to benefit Trump. It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission. Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticized by journalists. However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action as the public has a right to know so it can "exercise effective oversight of the government".

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations. While compiling the dossier, Steele passed his findings to both British and American intelligence services. The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and identified and spoke with at least two of Steele's sources. The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.

While Steele's documents played a significant role in initially highlighting the general friendliness between Trump and the Putin administration, the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven. While the dossier played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page, it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not the trigger for the opening of the Russia investigation into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The dossier is a factor in several conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his supporters .

OK, got it now?
 
It's almost like you guys are still living in 2020. A lot has happened since then. You know there was another report, some Durham guy. Then it was revealed the Steele Dossier was prepared for and funded by Clinton. You know little things like that make a big difference. You should really get current and move out of 2020 back when you had control of the narrative. Or perhaps that's why you're still stuck in 2020, the good old days before the exposure.

Durham found literally nothing.
When he tried to bring a court case, he got smacked down.
And when he found actual crimes of committed by Trump, he covered them up.

Just like Hurt, your Big Hopes for finding Dems being anywhere near as bad as Republicans have been dashed, so now you just have to make up stuff.
 
If you had read the reference given, you would have seen that was already specifically mentioned, in context.

Here, look. Since you're so information-adverse, I'll provide a lot more for you and highlight some relevant parts. Think you can stick with it for more than one or two words, hmm?


It was based on information from initially anonymous sources known to the author, counterintelligence specialist Christopher Steele. Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), was writing the report for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS, that was paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The dossier's 17 reports allege that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives had conspired to cooperate in Russia's election interference to benefit Trump. It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It was published by BuzzFeed News on January 10, 2017, without Steele's permission. Their decision to publish the reports without verifying the allegations was criticized by journalists. However, a judge defended BuzzFeed's action as the public has a right to know so it can "exercise effective oversight of the government".

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations. While compiling the dossier, Steele passed his findings to both British and American intelligence services. The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and identified and spoke with at least two of Steele's sources. The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.

While Steele's documents played a significant role in initially highlighting the general friendliness between Trump and the Putin administration, the veracity of specific allegations is highly variable. Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven. While the dossier played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page, it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not the trigger for the opening of the Russia investigation into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The dossier is a factor in several conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his supporters.

OK, got it now?

My bet is Chris won't get it. Not because he's unable, but because he's unwilling.
 
No he can't. But he'll undoubtedly just pretend that the facts were never pointed out to him. The gish gallop is strong with this one.
And when it becomes too silly for him to persist, he will the change subject entirely.

Also, he seems to think his "rile the lefties, make a snowflake cry" routine is somehow effective, that people get all worked up and riled. Yeah...nah. It's pretty hilarious to see him keep trying, actually.
 
Rich indeed.

ChrisBFRPKY is telling us he is completely ignorant of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "bipartisan Russia investigation" and its five-volume report. That committee was led by acting chairman Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator from Florida.

With bolding, italics, and links as in the bipartisan committee's official press release of Tuesday, August 18, 2020:
These weighty happenings tend to be ignored inside the MAGA/Fox disinformation bubble. I think it's likely that a significant segment of the Trump cult is actually unaware. And this too is certainly a factor:


 
Hillary, is that you?

Again, not being familiar with MAGAese, I’m not clear what your intent here is, as this post appears nonsensical to normal people.

Regardless, I remain certain that it doesn’t change the fact that a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee determined that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and had numerous contacts with the Trump campaign as part of that effort.
 
Again, not being familiar with MAGAese, I’m not clear what your intent here is, as this post appears nonsensical to normal people.

Regardless, I remain certain that it doesn’t change the fact that a
Republican
-led Senate intelligence committee determined that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and had numerous contacts with the Trump campaign as part of that effort.

RINO not MAGA
 
If you had read the reference given, you would have seen that was already specifically mentioned, in context.

Here, look. Since you're so information-adverse, I'll provide a lot more for you and highlight some relevant parts. Think you can stick with it for more than one or two words, hmm?



OK, got it now?

Which part proves Trump colluded with Russia and the 2016 election was stolen? Any of it? Didn't think so.

While going thru the Russia stuff, you should have a look at the Durham report. Specifically the part about the “Clinton Plan intelligence.” This was a Russian intelligence analysis obtained by the CIA that claimed Clinton on July 27, the same day Trump publicly called for Russia’s "help" at a campaign rally, had authorized a plan “to stir up a scandal against” Trump “by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

So if this was not political in nature why did the FBI not investigate the tip about Clinton as aggressively as it did Trump? Why wouldn't they? It's a good question.

You already know the answer. The fix was in. This was the beginning of the "Get Trump" era and Clinton did exactly what she accused Trump of doing, she colluded with Russia yet no investigations for Hillary. Lest you forget.
 
Which part proves Trump colluded with Russia and the 2016 election was stolen? Any of it? Didn't think so.

While going thru the Russia stuff, you should have a look at the Durham report. Specifically the part about the “Clinton Plan intelligence.” This was a Russian intelligence analysis obtained by the CIA that claimed Clinton on July 27, the same day Trump publicly called for Russia’s "help" at a campaign rally, had authorized a plan “to stir up a scandal against” Trump “by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

So if this was not political in nature why did the FBI not investigate the tip about Clinton as aggressively as it did Trump? Why wouldn't they? It's a good question.

You already know the answer. The fix was in. This was the beginning of the "Get Trump" era and Clinton did exactly what she accused Trump of doing, she colluded with Russia yet no investigations for Hillary. Lest you forget.

We know that Trump asked for Russia's help. He did that on TV.

We know he met with Russian agents at Trump Tower.

And we know that Russia did attempt to interfere in the election.

What more do you want?
 
Which part proves Trump colluded with Russia and the 2016 election was stolen? Any of it? Didn't think so.

While going thru the Russia stuff, you should have a look at the Durham report. Specifically the part about the “Clinton Plan intelligence.” This was a Russian intelligence analysis obtained by the CIA that claimed Clinton on July 27, the same day Trump publicly called for Russia’s "help" at a campaign rally, had authorized a plan “to stir up a scandal against” Trump “by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

So if this was not political in nature why did the FBI not investigate the tip about Clinton as aggressively as it did Trump? Why wouldn't they? It's a good question.

You already know the answer. The fix was in. This was the beginning of the "Get Trump" era and Clinton did exactly what she accused Trump of doing, she colluded with Russia yet no investigations for Hillary. Lest you forget.

Durham Report! Adorable!

Will he read this report showing what a pointless shambles that was, one report of many? I doubt it - it would break his brain.
Furthermore, Steele and Alfa were just a small part of a larger Trump-Russia discussion that was taking place publicly because of Trump’s actions. Trump was notably more respectful of Putin and disdainful of NATO than typical Republicans. The Russian government really did hack Democrats’ emails and have them leaked during the campaign. Trump viewed these leaks as highly beneficial to him, touting them constantly on the campaign trail, and even publicly calling on “Russia, if you’re listening” to find more Clinton emails. There were defensible reasons to wonder about Trump-Russia connections.

...

But note Durham’s sloppiness here. With his claims of a vast conspiracy to fabricate a scandal falling flat, he’s now claiming the Clinton team’s criticism of things Trump said publicly is part of a dastardly “Plan” to tarnish Trump. This is the best he’s got, and it’s extremely weak stuff.

...

Durham wanted to prove that the Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically. Again and again, Durham pursued various versions of this theory, and again and again, he fell short of proving his case.
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/16/23725373/durham-report-clinton-plan-trump-russia
 
Last edited:
This is like a bank robber caught in the act complaining that if he had robbed the bank he’d be much richer, so obviously he didn’t rob the bank. Not even entertaining anymore, just sophomoric.
 
Seriously? Chrissy tried to pull out the Durham report as his savior?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's like pulling this FBI report out to prove Bigfoot is real because the FBI lab analyzed hairs sent to them from a dedicated BigFootie back in the 70's.
The lab claimed it was deer hair but what it really meant was that it was proof of Bigfoot.
 
He kept dreaming
(Dreaming)
Oh, that someday he'd be a star
(A superstar, but he didn't get far)
But he sure found out the hard way
That dreams don't always come true (dreams don't always come true)
Oh no (uh-uh, no, uh-uh)
- Gladys Knight & the Pips
 
The State Bar Court of California has recommended that John Eastman, one of the defendants in the Fulton County Georgia RICO case, be disbarred:
In this contested disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (OCTC) charged John Charles Eastman (Eastman) with 11 counts of misconduct arising from certain activities surrounding his representation of former president Donald J. Trump and the 2020 presidential election....

After full consideration of the record, the court finds that OCTC has satisfied its burden of proving all charges except for count eleven, which the court dismisses with prejudice. In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred.
The court also recommended monetary fines and damages.
 
Another defendant, Jeffrey Clark, was forced to take the stand yesterday in a disciplinary hearing that might well end with his disbarment.

During 30 minutes of cross-examination, Clark "invoked several privileges, including executive privilege, law-enforcement privilege, deliberative-process privilege, attorney-client privilege and the Fifth Amendment".

When asked to name the client of his attorney-client privilege, Clark answered "President Trump. The head of the executive branch. The sole and the unitary head of Article Two, the executive branch of the United States government."

At which point one of Clark's lawyers suggested to Clark that he go back to invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to answer.

An article at the New Republic interpreted Clark's defiant answer as implicating Donald Trump in the offenses for which Clark is facing discipline:
Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark made a major slip-up on Wednesday, admitting during a disciplinary hearing to save his law license that he had one client in mind while dodging questions on the basis of attorney-client privilege: former President Donald Trump.
That does appear to have been why Clark's lawyer intervened.
 
Just watched the hearing to strike the GA charges.

Trump's lawyer argues that its wrong and unjust to label the fake electors "fake electors".

And if that phrase is removed from the indictment, the entire indictment falls apart.

I'm sorry, didn't the GA legislature and Governor and Secretary of State CERTIFY that Biden won the election and that the Democrat electors were the only official ones???

Doesnt that mean that any document showing that Trump's electors won, and has no certification from the Governor and Secretary of State, is FAKE????

These guys are soo pathetically dishonest and desperate.
 
Just watched the hearing to strike the GA charges.

Trump's lawyer argues that its wrong and unjust to label the fake electors "fake electors".

And if that phrase is removed from the indictment, the entire indictment falls apart.

I'm sorry, didn't the GA legislature and Governor and Secretary of State CERTIFY that Biden won the election and that the Democrat electors were the only official ones???

Doesnt that mean that any document showing that Trump's electors won, and has no certification from the Governor and Secretary of State, is FAKE????

These guys are soo pathetically dishonest and desperate.

Delay, delay, delay.

Then . . .

Deny, deny, deny.
 
Back
Top Bottom