Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

Democrat Schiff draws Trump ire with House intel probes

Recommended Posts

A post containing a profane misspelling of Schiff's name has been removed.  If you do not want your posts to be removed, spell people's names correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" You're just repeating Democrat/MSM talking points. If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE. "

 

Are you living in a cave?  There have been many indictments, prosecutions, guilty pleas and prison sentences.  Don Jr hasn't been indicted yet, but the investigation isn't over.  The DNC was hacked by Gucifer, which intelligence agencies believe is a Russian organization.  Julian Assange is a liar and a sexual predator who can't be trusted. 

 

Oh right...you indicated you get your news from Fox.  I'll be you can't even name a real news program on Fox, and you get all your "news" from the irrational rants on their pundit programs.

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm 🙄🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Im a conservative voting englishman so what partisan bias is at play ? If you consider facts as insults then thank you for confirming my point.

  12 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Moronic delusion is no substitute for reasoned argument , make believe is no match for truth , partisan bias will always be trumped by independent thought.

 

 

the orange man bad bias is clear, then you just insult and you presented no facts or reasoned arguments or independent thought, I am not

sure why you are getting so twisted over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:


Yet those Californians handed the GOP their hat in the midterms. Prolly because it was a massive conspiracy by the ..........


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

or the ballot harvesting and retirements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm 🙄🙄

So they're lying under oath, and you blame the investigation. Oh, and earlier crimes don't count.

People in the Trump campaign have been convicted, no denying or spinning that. I think more to follow, but we'll have to wait and see, unless you have insight in the Muller files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So they're lying under oath, and you blame the investigation. Oh, and earlier crimes don't count.

People in the Trump campaign have been convicted, no denying or spinning that. I think more to follow, but we'll have to wait and see, unless you have insight in the Muller files.

 

Yeah you're not getting it. The point you're missing is that "People in the Trump campaign" were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to Russian Collusion (ie the basis of the Special Counsel "Investigation"). No denying or spinning necessary, those are the FACTS.

 

Of course you think more will follow, why wouldn't you? If you watch CNN you would think everyone ever remotely linked to Trump is guilty of Russian collusion including the chef for using russian salad dressing on a salad he prepared. And allow me to explain a little something to you about "lying under oath". Someone can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI for remembering something differently than someone else or getting a date wrong. It doesn't need to be a deliberate and malicious lie with the intent to deceive. And anyway, lying to the FBI does not in itself prove conspiracy to collude with the Russians to interfere with an election, which is supposed to be what the Special Counsel Investigation was convened to do, so far without success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Yeah you're not getting it. The point you're missing is that "People in the Trump campaign" were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to Russian Collusion (ie the basis of the Special Counsel "Investigation"). No denying or spinning necessary, those are the FACTS.

 

Of course you think more will follow, why wouldn't you? If you watch CNN you would think everyone ever remotely linked to Trump is guilty of Russian collusion including the chef for using russian salad dressing on a salad he prepared. And allow me to explain a little something to you about "lying under oath". Someone can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI for remembering something differently than someone else or getting a date wrong. It doesn't need to be a deliberate and malicious lie with the intent to deveive. And anyway, lying to the FBI does not in itself prove conspiracy to collude with the Russians to interfere with an election, which is supposed to be what the Special Counsel Investigation was convened to do.

You have some real frustrations with CNN. I watch that about 30 minutes or so every month btw.

 

And yes, I'm getting it, you're not. Many from within the campaign have been convicted, and you have no idea what is to follow. Neither do I, but I don't pretend to know, I just have my suspicions, fueled by facts. These facts that are missing from your rants here.

 

And you'd better stop the arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You have some real frustrations with CNN. I watch that about 30 minutes or so every month btw.

 

And yes, I'm getting it, you're not. Many from within the campaign have been convicted, and you have no idea what is to follow. Neither do I, but I don't pretend to know, I just have my suspicions, fueled by facts. These facts that are missing from your rants here.

 

Sigh... Telling me that you're getting it and I am not does not make it so unless you back it up. Where are all these "facts" that your "suspicions" are fueled by ?? As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless. The point is (once again...) that they were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to the Russian investigation. Seriously man, this is a matter of public record, look it up for heavens sake. I am sorry if you think bombarding you with facts qualify in your uninformed mind as "rants", I can't help that I'm afraid. Anyway I am done with you until you go and do some research. As I suggested earlier, go and watch some Alan Derschowitz interviews on this subject, you may learn something. Or maybe not, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And you'd better stop the arrogance.

 

Or else what ?? Sorry if my superior knowledge on the topic comes across as "arrogance". I can't help what you choose to perceive unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Or else what ?? Sorry if my superior knowledge on the topic comes across as "arrogance". I can't help what you choose to perceive unfortunately...

It is not becoming. Only those who know what they're talking about could show arrogance, still not a good character treat, on others it just shows stupidity. See your previous post as a prime example, so I'm out of any discussion with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm 🙄🙄

Sigh.  You are significantly rephrasing your incorrect statement so you can pretend you didn't post something stupid.  You posted:

 

" If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE." 

 

You did not limit your post to crimes of collusion.  This topic isn't limited to crimes of collusion.  Collusion isn't a crime.  However obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, money laundering, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws are crimes.  There have been indictments, charges, prosecutions and guilty pleas regarding many crimes.  Trump has a knack for hiring people who have had suspicious dealings with unsavory Russians.  He also fathered at least one child who did the same.

 

BTW:  The intelligence agencies believe that the DNC was hacked by Russian trolls.  They won't release the evidence because that would show the trolls how they were discovered and allow them to become better trolls.  You may choose to trust the words of a sexual predator over the US intelligence agencies, but I don't.

 

Do you have any source for information other than Fox pundits?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the usual populous left wing propaganda useless and wasting tax payer money to create political nonsense bomshells like the buzzfeed one or the cohen one....

it can also be compared to ocasia-cortez new green deal or like pelosi said new dream deal, which is political nonsense, which would cost millions of us jobs.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh... Telling me that you're getting it and I am not does not make it so unless you back it up. Where are all these "facts" that your "suspicions" are fueled by ?? As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless. The point is (once again...) that they were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to the Russian investigation. Seriously man, this is a matter of public record, look it up for heavens sake. I am sorry if you think bombarding you with facts qualify in your uninformed mind as "rants", I can't help that I'm afraid. Anyway I am done with you until you go and do some research. As I suggested earlier, go and watch some Alan Derschowitz interviews on this subject, you may learn something. Or maybe not, who knows.

"As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless."

What a load of nonsense. Trump claiming to drain the swamp, what did he do? He employed a bunch of criminals. 

That you only care they were not convicted of another crime is ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

He employed a bunch of criminals. 

But that's not what he told us … ???

Dx93GlUU8AAs7qs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...