|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 02 2017 08:20 Artisreal wrote:
I am not surprised that you condone the deflection of the Russia investigation to but her emails.
Fits your style.
That doesn't diminish the imperative to follow up this possible evidence. Using it as a cover to divert or discredit other investigations is still not acceptable.
E: apologies I've must have misread.
Listen: Any ongoing investigation is going to get the same response from shitlibs. There's nothing here and it's all just a deflection. In fact, you don't even have to read if there's anything to the revelations to arrive at that conclusion.
|
On September 02 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 08:20 Artisreal wrote:
I am not surprised that you condone the deflection of the Russia investigation to but her emails.
Fits your style.
That doesn't diminish the imperative to follow up this possible evidence. Using it as a cover to divert or discredit other investigations is still not acceptable.
E: apologies I've must have misread. Listen: Any ongoing investigation is going to get the same response from shitlibs. There's nothing here and it's all just a deflection. In fact, you don't even have to read if there's anything to the revelations to arrive at that conclusion.
Before you try and take the high horse, remember how often you went out on a limb for the dumbest shit in regards to trump, urging everyone not to believe "maybe" or "i think".
Which is literally the entire content of your posting. There might be something wrong, yes. Fact of the matter is, nobody to this point knows shit, including you, so don't act like you do. You're literally doing what you constantly "explain to us" not to do.
|
I am continually amazed at how deep the right blogosphere will dig to try to counter any Russia news story, regardless of how important or relevant the counters actually are. It's like they have a reservoir of vapid non-stories on the level of Seth Rich to muddy the waters
|
maybe there had been pretty much no evidence that could be used to convict clinton of wrongdoing after a very extensive investigation. so, prior to an in-person interview which at that point was pretty much a formality comey decided to get a statement written in advance. oh wow, when you put it like that it kinda makes sense doesn't it.
|
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road.
|
On September 02 2017 09:17 LegalLord wrote:
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road.
Eh? If i recall, most people here said that he's one of the most principled men they've ever seen, me included.
On the rest, well, nobody ever does that. I've never seen a cover of a magazine depicting hillary as a president or something.
|
The sad thing is that this latest FUD play by Trump/Grassley/FOX will be evaporate into the memory hole by next Tuesday. A whole lot of people don't yet realize that by 9 months into the investigation, the conclusion is known to 95% certainty. The last two months you have to play coy as you wrap up the last few interviews. Further reporting on this is spin will dispel this lack of knowledge and we will never hear from it again.
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: and it seems DJT's nonsensical worldview is explained by the easiest of all possible explanations. This answers why he always seems to push the lamest shitspins from FOX without ever thinking about it.
|
On September 02 2017 09:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:17 LegalLord wrote:
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road. Eh? If i recall, most people here said that he's one of the most principled men they've ever seen, me included. On the rest, well, nobody ever does that. I've never seen a cover of a magazine depicting hillary as a president or something.
Not during the Comey letter fiasco. Throughout the campaign he was either good or corrupt depending on whether or not he was doing what was politically favorable to your candidate of choice. But it did definitely seem to settle in the aftermath of it all.
|
On September 02 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:20 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 09:17 LegalLord wrote:
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road. Eh? If i recall, most people here said that he's one of the most principled men they've ever seen, me included. On the rest, well, nobody ever does that. I've never seen a cover of a magazine depicting hillary as a president or something. Not during the Comey letter fiasco. Throughout the campaign he was either good or corrupt depending on whether or not he was doing what was politically favorable to your candidate of choice. But it did definitely seem to settle in the aftermath of it all.
Well that republicans always saw him as a corrupt person, or Mueller/anyone who's "hunting trump", isn't really a surprise. He never struck me as corrupt.
|
On September 02 2017 09:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:On September 02 2017 09:20 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 09:17 LegalLord wrote:
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road. Eh? If i recall, most people here said that he's one of the most principled men they've ever seen, me included. On the rest, well, nobody ever does that. I've never seen a cover of a magazine depicting hillary as a president or something. Not during the Comey letter fiasco. Throughout the campaign he was either good or corrupt depending on whether or not he was doing what was politically favorable to your candidate of choice. But it did definitely seem to settle in the aftermath of it all. Well that republicans always saw him as a corrupt person, or Mueller/anyone who's "hunting trump", isn't really a surprise. He never struck me as corrupt.
Democrats did too in the Comey letter matter that Hillary Clinton blamed on her loss until no one believed her. Harry Reid sent a very inappropriate angry public letter to Comey as well there. And posters here largely took after their candidate of choice.
|
On September 02 2017 09:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:31 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:On September 02 2017 09:20 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 09:17 LegalLord wrote:
After months of dilly-dallying back and forth it does seem that people eventually came around to what I was saying the whole time: that Comey is generally a very principled and trustworthy FBI director. Definitely strikes me as one of those "do it ahead of time" time-saving measures that does not imply a conclusion but saves some effort down the road. Eh? If i recall, most people here said that he's one of the most principled men they've ever seen, me included. On the rest, well, nobody ever does that. I've never seen a cover of a magazine depicting hillary as a president or something. Not during the Comey letter fiasco. Throughout the campaign he was either good or corrupt depending on whether or not he was doing what was politically favorable to your candidate of choice. But it did definitely seem to settle in the aftermath of it all. Well that republicans always saw him as a corrupt person, or Mueller/anyone who's "hunting trump", isn't really a surprise. He never struck me as corrupt. Democrats did too in the Comey letter matter that Hillary Clinton blamed on her loss until no one believed her. Harry Reid sent a very inappropriate angry public letter to Comey as well there. And posters here largely took after their candidate of choice.
there's a difference between saying comey was corrupt (which few dems did iirc); and saying what he did was inappropriate (which many did, and is arguable and plausibly correct)
|
On September 02 2017 09:22 Wulfey_LA wrote:EDIT: and it seems DJT's nonsensical worldview is explained by the easiest of all possible explanations. This answers why he always seems to push the lamest shitspins from FOX without ever thinking about it. https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/903776772419932160
how does he tweet if he has no pc or internet capable phone?
|
On September 02 2017 09:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:how does he tweet if he has no pc or internet capable phone?
He has twitter on the phone just not a web browser
|
On September 02 2017 09:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:how does he tweet if he has no pc or internet capable phone?
It says he doesn't have a web browser, not a complete Internet disconnect, so I assume he uses the Twitter app.
|
On September 02 2017 09:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2017 08:20 Artisreal wrote:
I am not surprised that you condone the deflection of the Russia investigation to but her emails.
Fits your style.
That doesn't diminish the imperative to follow up this possible evidence. Using it as a cover to divert or discredit other investigations is still not acceptable.
E: apologies I've must have misread. Listen: Any ongoing investigation is going to get the same response from shitlibs. There's nothing here and it's all just a deflection. In fact, you don't even have to read if there's anything to the revelations to arrive at that conclusion. Before you try and take the high horse, remember how often you went out on a limb for the dumbest shit in regards to trump, urging everyone not to believe "maybe" or "i think". Which is literally the entire content of your posting. There might be something wrong, yes. Fact of the matter is, nobody to this point knows shit, including you, so don't act like you do. You're literally doing what you constantly "explain to us" not to do.
Such as? You must really avoid the BS "going out in a limb for the dumbest shit." If you think I'm not credible, attack the sources or attack my argument or ignore me. All these generalized attacks on me serve no purpose.
Secondly, I pointed out the substance of the allegations and all that earned was "condoning the deflection." It was a bullshit answer and he deserved the response.
|
On September 02 2017 08:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is some sad distraction play by Grassley. Nothing in the interviews changed the conclusion that the evidence from the server itself told: zero evidence of crime. Nothing alleged by Grassley here changes the fact that the servers didn't show HRC sending emails marked with a (C). Yes, she received three that had a (C) deep in the email thread, but she wasn't the one sending them and that isn't nearly enough for a prosecution.
EDIT: isn't it entirely plausible that the investigation into the hard evidence and early phone calls was enough to exonerate here? The emails themselves flatly showed no crime. The interviews didn't add anything.
EDIT2: damn this Grassley spin is going down fast.
If he was still handing out immunity agreements in exchange for testimony, then it doesn't make sense that he had enough to exonerate. You're not pursuing a crime, so there's no sense in striking immunity deals for evidence in the crime you're not building a case for.
|
On September 02 2017 09:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 09:12 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2017 08:20 Artisreal wrote:
I am not surprised that you condone the deflection of the Russia investigation to but her emails.
Fits your style.
That doesn't diminish the imperative to follow up this possible evidence. Using it as a cover to divert or discredit other investigations is still not acceptable.
E: apologies I've must have misread. Listen: Any ongoing investigation is going to get the same response from shitlibs. There's nothing here and it's all just a deflection. In fact, you don't even have to read if there's anything to the revelations to arrive at that conclusion. Before you try and take the high horse, remember how often you went out on a limb for the dumbest shit in regards to trump, urging everyone not to believe "maybe" or "i think". Which is literally the entire content of your posting. There might be something wrong, yes. Fact of the matter is, nobody to this point knows shit, including you, so don't act like you do. You're literally doing what you constantly "explain to us" not to do. Such as? You must really avoid the BS "going out in a limb for the dumbest shit." If you think I'm not credible, attack the sources or attack my argument or ignore me. All these generalized attacks on me serve no purpose. Secondly, I pointed out the substance of the allegations and all that earned was "condoning the deflection." It was a bullshit answer and he deserved the response.
We both know that i don't think you're credible. And i in fact did attack the source, i literally told you what's in it. "Maybe", "i think", "probably". There's nothing of substance other than "okay lets ask for documents to doublecheck", yet you're going ham as if they actually caught comey doing something.
You went out on a limb for the dumbest shit trump said and in regards to the russia investigation, constantly emphasising that these are all "not proven", "allegations" and the obvious "anonymous sources don't count" shit.
You seem to have forgotten.
edit: as a footnote, that's not you personally but generally the way you debate. Constantly deflecting to other points and whataboutism - things that make you inherently not trustworthy because everything seems like you argue in bad faith.
|
On September 02 2017 06:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 06:02 brian wrote:
threatening a dying man i don't know.. Trump is really popular right now in his home state don't cha know.
Mccain is a dying man who held onto that state for years, i also don't think he responds well to threats. I think a man who was in a prison camp has a good handle on spite.
|
On September 02 2017 10:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 08:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:This is some sad distraction play by Grassley. Nothing in the interviews changed the conclusion that the evidence from the server itself told: zero evidence of crime. Nothing alleged by Grassley here changes the fact that the servers didn't show HRC sending emails marked with a (C). Yes, she received three that had a (C) deep in the email thread, but she wasn't the one sending them and that isn't nearly enough for a prosecution. EDIT: isn't it entirely plausible that the investigation into the hard evidence and early phone calls was enough to exonerate here? The emails themselves flatly showed no crime. The interviews didn't add anything. EDIT2: damn this Grassley spin is going down fast. https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/903598250908901377 If he was still handing out immunity agreements in exchange for testimony, then it doesn't make sense that he had enough to exonerate. You're not pursuing a crime, so there's no sense in striking immunity deals for evidence in the crime you're not building a case for.
If you want to argue that "it doesn't make sense that he had enough to exonerate", then you need to put up a relevant standard that shows why Comey was wrong in his judgment as to how to proceed in the investigation. Remember that Comey gets the overwhelming benefit of the doubt here over any accusations due to decades of experience and having an army of agents backing him up.
The easy explanation here is that he handed out the injunctions because he wanted to make damned sure the investigation was right, so he got a final round of interviews right before releasing the memo. Think about the timeline.
1) 9 months of investigations - there were interviews + servers + emails here
2) May 2016 - Comey decides to start writing memo seeing where investigation is going
3) June/July 2016 - final interviews done to double/triple check, immunities handed out to get absolute truth
4) Then Comey releases the memo after interviews don't change anything (remember that factually, they didn't change anything).
|
Know where I am placing my bets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
