• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and NFL boycott

plague311 said:
Are you just hopping from thread to thread trying to "Buttery Mails" each one?

Did Durham release any actual evidence recently? I've seen the headlines but has someone been arrested, indicted, or anything?
Click to expand...

The only reason trumpublicans love it that Trump gets away with crime is that it upsets the liberals. They will do anything and everything to own the libs, they will destroy the economy, burn books, sacrifice their children, sacrifice others' children, support criminals and watch the country burn as long as it "owns the libs".

They know Trump is a criminal, that he is Putin's boy. They love it, because it makes libs angry.
 
thaiboxerken said:
They know Trump is a criminal, that he is Putin's boy.
Click to expand...

And yet, somehow nobody can find any actual evidence of his alleged Putin dealings. Much of the supposed evidence has now been revealed to be fraudulent. It's passing strange.
 
Ziggurat said:
at least one conviction already.
Click to expand...

Yes. Let's take a closer look at that conviction...

Boasberg, who is also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's presiding judge, notably said he believes the warrant still may have been signed for surveillance of Page, who in 2017 was a former Trump foreign policy adviser who was under investigation because of his ties to Russians.

"Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with the other government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized," Boasberg said, though he also noted other mistakes in the Page foreign intelligence surveillance applications.

Clinesmith obtained no real personal benefit from his actions and had no active intent to harm, the judge also noted.

"My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Dr. Page was true," Boasberg said.

"He was saving himself some work taking an inappropriate shortcut," but didn't intend to give wrong information about Page, the judge added.

Boasberg also noted how the Justice Department inspector general found Clinesmith wasn't acting with political bias -- a point the Trump administration tried to make repeatedly to undermine the Mueller investigation that grew out of the FBI's work on Russia in 2016 and 2017.
Click to expand...

So, basically this FBI lawyer took an "inappropriate shortcut" without active intent to harm, not acting with political bias, likely believing what he said to be true, admitted and apologized for it and you're taking a victory lap?
 
erlando said:
So, basically this FBI lawyer took an "inappropriate shortcut" without active intent to harm
Click to expand...

Bull ****. That wasn't an "inappropriate shortcut".

not acting with political bias
Click to expand...

No. And this is where we can tell either Boasberg or CNN is full of ****. The inspector general did not find that he was "not acting with political bias". Rather, the inspector general didn't find that he WAS acting with political bias. But it's basically impossible to show someone was acting with political bias even when they are unless they declare themselves to be, which is unlikely to happen. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, the IG very explicitly stated that they could not rule out political bias.

likely believing what he said to be true
Click to expand...

Uh, no. He knew what he wrote was false. And he knew that because he had to change what was true into what was false. He was not saving himself work, he was doing work by changing it that he didn't need to do.

admitted and apologized for it
Click to expand...

Yeah, people tend to do that after they get caught. Why does that impress you?
 
Ziggurat said:
What counts as recently to you? Why is two days ago not recent enough?
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
Did Durham release any actual evidence recently? I've seen the headlines but has someone been arrested, indicted, or anything?
Click to expand...

Arrested, indicted, evidence? Like I said, I've seen the headlines. What is there that's been released recently that solidifies it? I hope that clarification helps. I thought it was pretty clear.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, somehow nobody can find any actual evidence of his alleged Putin dealings. Much of the supposed evidence has now been revealed to be fraudulent. It's passing strange.
Click to expand...

And Al Capone's only crime was tax evasion.....
 
plague311 said:
Arrested, indicted, evidence? Like I said, I've seen the headlines. What is there that's been released recently that solidifies it? I hope that clarification helps. I thought it was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

You were not at all clear about what counts as "recent". The most recent indictment is from last November, and my link was to the DOJ page about it, not "headlines". Given the pace of such investigations, I think that counts as recent, though perhaps you disagree (again, you haven't specified even though I directly asked). The most recent evidence is from two days ago, and while I linked to a news story, the contents of the news story come from Durham's latest court filing. If you insist on examining the filing directly, that is easily done. If you think two days ago is not recent, I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Ziggurat said:
You were not at all clear about what counts as "recent". The most recent indictment is from last November, and my link was to the DOJ page about it, not "headlines". Given the pace of such investigations, I think that counts as recent, though perhaps you disagree (again, you haven't specified even though I directly asked). The most recent evidence is from two days ago, and while I linked to a news story, the contents of the news story come from Durham's latest court filing. If you insist on examining the filing directly, that is easily done. If you think two days ago is not recent, I really don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

In your reply to Stacy you implied that Trump was exonerated, right? Because that's exactly, and 100% how it reads, since that's the part she hilited. You replied by saying, "You haven't kept up with Durham."

I'm trying to figure out what Durham has shown, what charges he's filed, what evidence he's released, that somehow changes what Stacy posted. You've now replied with a 1 count indictment of lying to the FBI by someone that worked for the tech company, not about anything really substantial, but he lied about who he was working for. It doesn't change the information he provided, it doesn't change the work he did, it doesn't make anything he did illegal, it really doesn't do **** all to prove anything other than he lied about who was paying him.

So what, in any way, does this have to do with Trump not being exonerated by the Mueller report, which was the implication\claim?
 
Last edited:
I never claimed or suggested that the Mueller report exonerated him. What we have learned since then has shown that it was predicted on an orchestrated smear. Mueller should have discovered what Durham is uncovering, but he didn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never claimed or suggested that the Mueller report exonerated him. What we have learned since then has shown that it was predicted on an orchestrated smear. Mueller should have discovered what Durham is uncovering, but he didn't.
Click to expand...

You seriously believe that, don't you?
 
Ziggurat said:
Bull ****. That wasn't an "inappropriate shortcut".



No. And this is where we can tell either Boasberg or CNN is full of ****. The inspector general did not find that he was "not acting with political bias". Rather, the inspector general didn't find that he WAS acting with political bias. But it's basically impossible to show someone was acting with political bias even when they are unless they declare themselves to be, which is unlikely to happen. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, the IG very explicitly stated that they could not rule out political bias.



Uh, no. He knew what he wrote was false. And he knew that because he had to change what was true into what was false. He was not saving himself work, he was doing work by changing it that he didn't need to do.



Yeah, people tend to do that after they get caught. Why does that impress you?
Click to expand...


Regarding that last paragraph... There is now afoot a political movement that has devolved to the point of having no shame, and NEVER admitting to wrongdoing nor issuing apologies. The paragon of this gaslighting is none other than the orange excrescence. This odious cabal ascribes to the credo that never admitting fault is tantamount to exoneration.

Are you sympatico with this New Innocence?
 
Lurch said:
Are you sympatico with this New Innocence?
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that many republicans were doing this long before Trump. Now, there are more of them doing it and louder about it. Fortunately, the population of those who identify as republican has decreased significantly.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never claimed or suggested that the Mueller report exonerated him. What we have learned since then has shown that it was predicted on an orchestrated smear. Mueller should have discovered what Durham is uncovering, but he didn't.
Click to expand...
Maybe Mueller was too busy finding real crimes and evidence of conspiracy to worry about "Gee... was this warrant done properly?"

Mueller worked for less than 2 years and resulted in dozens of indictments (many resulting in convictions). Durham has worked for almost 3 years (roughly a year longer than Mueller), has resulted in, what, 2 indictments (neither of which have yet resulted in conviction), and a few veiled allegations.

This sort of reminds me of Kenneth Starr's investigation into Clinton... the type of "nothing really here but we'll keep digging around and maybe something might be of value politically".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom