Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
Unlike Libtards, I hang my hat on real evidence that can prove someone is guilty without a shadow of a doubt. You had the largest most expensive investigation in modern history, members of the DOJ and FBI who were actively out for Trump, and a media mob out to destroy him and they couldn’t prove he was guilty of anything! Just opinions and conjecture. If we used your argument, Biden would be guilty too. You’re seriously gonna bring up shady business dealing with corrupt foreign nationals and ties with Russia? How bout throwing in China and Ukraine for the perfect Biden trifecta of corruption. You wanna talk about circumstantial evidence? How does the entire Biden get rich while Creepy Joe is VPOTUS? The funny thing is you have a senate investigation team investigate and present evidence against the Biden’s and you cite journalistic opinions of how it’s not true. Really, was the liberal media apart of the investigation? There is so much “circumstantial” evidence coming out daily about Biden corruption that it makes Trump look like a choir boy. If Biden is willing to lie to congress and the American people over this, what else would he lie about? Tara Reade? Makes you wonder. Look at his reaction in the press interview yesterday. Did u see how defensive he was? Is that the reaction of somebody telling the truth? In the end, your boy got caught. He was labeled a liar after lying about Flynn and his history of plagiarism and fake resumes. The guy has a real problem with the truth. He puts libtards in a tough spot when we all find out he’s more corrupt than Trump. Good luck. You’re gonna need it. -
Talk about a word salad.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
It's very simple, really. The evidence I referenced above is well-sourced and credible.
Everything in the Homeland Security report you keep talking about has been proven to come from a Russian disinformation campaign. The FBI (part of trump's own justice department) even released a memo warning us about it.
You can keep trying to claim these two sets of accusations have equivalent credibility, but nobody's buying it.Comment
-
-
That's easy:Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
1. The OLC memo that states a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime (wait till he's out of office)
2. Mitch McConnell intimidated Senate republicans into acquitting trump in the impeachment trial without allowing witnesses that had material evidence to testify. Party over country. They will pay later.
Your turn:
If Biden is guilty of anything, whay hasn't the Barr/Trump-controlled justice department indicted him? Surely they'd do that if they had a case, right?Comment
-
Oh, so it’s McConnells fault he wasn’t impeached. Certainly it wasn’t because the government failed to present concrete evidence in the case. Seriously, I wish you could hear how ridiculously weak your arguments are.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Man, you too stupid to realize you’re answering you own question. Unlike libtards, Barr is smart enough to to know it’s not what you think it’s what you can prove. How many times have you heard me say that? He is smart enough to know that you don’t drag the country through long expensive investigations without concrete evidence supporting these accusations. He knows if you do that you’ll end up looking like complete idiots like you guys did. The senate investigation against Biden served its purpose. Although it still remains to be seen if any criminality comes from this, it did show what we all suspected all along. Biden is a shady compromised China sympathizer whose family because rich while dealing with corrupt foreign nationals and communist Russian and Chinese oligarchs. Those are just the facts of the Senate investigation. Sucks for you and your Trump hating rhetoric.Comment
-
Let's see what those connected dots looked like from the FBI special agent who served on Muellers team. Kinda blows the libtard narrative out of the water. How many agents does this make who now have testified under oath there was nothing there?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...-was-not-there
An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there" and considered it to be a "dead end."
Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe was “opaque” and “with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.”
“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”
After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.”
Barnett, at the time, said that he believed the investigation was “problematic and could result in an inspector general investigation.”
“Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” the 302 stated. “Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law.”
Barnett added that he believed the appointment of Mueller in May 2017 “changed everything," and described the situation pertaining to the special counsel's office as "‘upside down’ with attorneys drafting search warrants and getting agents to simply act as affiants,” the 302 stated.
“Barnett thought there was a ‘get Trump’ attitude by some at the SCO,” the 302 continued.
“There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more the attitude of ‘the evidence is there we just have to find it,’” Barnett’s 302 stated.
“Barnett said it seems there was always someone at SCO who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove collusion, only to have the information be a dead end,” the 302 stated.
"Barnett believed Flynn lied in his interview to save his job, as that was the most plausible explanation and there was no evidence to contradict it," the 302 stated. "Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by Mueller's office was used as a means to ‘get Trump.'"Comment
-
I guess breitbart forgot to tell you that McConnell's republican-led senate refused to hear relevant witness testimony and proceeded directly to a vote. The house managers didn't present concrete evidence because, contrary to every previous impeachment trial, they weren't permitted to.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The Homeland Security report (the one that you brought up) accuses Hunter Biden of prostitution, human trafficking, and extortion. What hasn't the Trump/Barr-controlled justice department indicted him?Comment
-
I guess the MSM is not telling how special agent after special agent are now coming out under oath testifying there was "never" any evidence of collusion and the higher up were "out to get Trump" That'ss a sure kick in nuts for libtard conspiracy theorist like you.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Couple that with HRC and the DNC paying a now confirmed Russian spy for dirt on Trump and you can see why nothing came of the longest most expensive history in modern histroy. The biggest libtard fail of the century so far.Comment
-
Who would have thought connecting the dots would be so much fun.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio...lity-insurance
SHOCKING: Newly released texts show FBI insiders purchased 'liability insurance' amid Trump-Russia probe. The leaked texts make Watergate look tame
But, it gets even worse. Now, new leaked texts and communications from FBI agents within the department at the time of the entire Russian collusion effort were disclosed in federal court filings on Thursday. According to the court documents, FBI agents purchased "professional liability insurance" to protect themselves in January 2017, just weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, because they were concerned about the agency's potentially illegal activity during the Russia collusion investigation.
"Trump was right," one FBI employee wrote in response to then-President-elect Trump's Jan 3, 2017 tweet which read: "The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"Comment
-
Oops, looks like somebody just read Glenn Beck's twisted interpretation instead of the actual transcripts.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
"Flynn’s team alleges that one January 2017 message — an exchange in which two FBI officials suggest their colleagues were all obtaining liability insurance ahead of Trump’s inauguration — indicated it was related to their fears about the handling of the Flynn investigation. But Barnett, in his interview, contradicted that claim, suggesting it was unlikely to be related to the Flynn probe because it predated the public disclosure of the matter in new reports. Barnett also said he regularly encourages colleagues to obtain professional liability insurance."
Flynn’s legal team may also have misinterpreted another set of messages in which they say “FBI analysts discussed the preference of some agents for a Clinton Presidency.” A fuller set of messages included with the filing, however, makes clear that they referred to a suggestion that the Russians — not FBI officials — might have preferred Hillary Clinton since she was a known entity, while Trump presented more of a “wild card.”
In the fuller exchange, the agents debate the issue, with one replying, “I don’t know man, the hooks Russia has into big T are pretty deep.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...n-probe-421633
The timing of all this is no coincidence. Flynn's lawyer is throwing every hail Mary she has to sway judge Sullivan, who is scheduled to hear arguments for and against the DOJ motion to drop the case. This judge doesn't tolerate bullsh1t, so Flynn should prepare to be very disappointed.Comment
-
This might be a good time to remind people to beware of accepting right-wing media "interpretations" of a story without reading the actual source material. You will nearly always find either a twisted interpretation or outright lies. Here's the 13-page summary of the Barnett interview filed by prosecutors just before midnight on Thursday:Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...1592.249.0.pdf
Quoting directly from the court document:
"BARNETT was asked about a Lync message between [redacted] and [redacted] on 1/9/2017 concerning professional liability insurance. BARNETT did not know the specifics concerning the text, however BARNETT routinely suggested persons obtain professional liability insurance. BARNETT thought the message did not concern the RAZOR investigation due to the date of the Lync message preceding the Ignatius article"
Yet Glenn Beck's theblaze.com says this about that quote:
"According to the court documents, FBI agents purchased "professional liability insurance" to protect themselves in January 2017, just weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, because they were concerned about the agency's potentially illegal activity during the Russia collusion investigation."
It's hard to characterize this as anything other than a blatant intentional lie. There's a reason Media Bias Fact Check has this to say about theBlaze:
"Overall, we rate The Blaze strongly Right Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks and loaded emotional headlines. The founder of The Blaze, Glenn Beck, has an abysmal track record with 6 Pants on Fire claims from Politifact alone"
Readers might consider ignoring any post containing a link to theblaze.com, like we already do for any post containing a breitbart link.Comment
-
“May have” and “unlikely”? That’s your rebuttal? Sounds like a repeat of the entire Mueller investigation. And if the Russians “preferred” Hillary over Trump then that goes against EVERY libtard narrative that the Russian sway the election to Trumps favor. The contradiction coming from you is an obvious show of desperation to cover for a investigation that is falling to pieces. With each release of declassified info, it keeps looking worse for the Dems. Especially using information for FISA warrants from a unknown Russian spy the FBI had been surveilling for a decade. Nice try but nobody is buying it. Multiple agents have come forward to testify under oath there was nothing there. You can try to refute it with “may have” interpreted this or it’s “unlikely” they meant that but, at the end of the day you’re going look as dumb as you did believing Trump was a Russian agent. 😂Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Even the FBI is coming out saying “Trump was right”. It’s all about a collective CYA at this point.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-...sian-collusion
'Trump was right': New FBI texts show agents 'scrambling' over evidence of Russian collusion
'Doing all this election research — I think some of these guys want a Clinton presidency'
As then-President-elect Donald Trump was preparing to assume office in January 2017, the FBI was "scrambling" to put together evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, new texts from an FBI employee involved in the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn show.
Newsweek also reported that the text messages from two unnamed FBI staffers discussed President Barack Obama's intelligence briefing on Jan. 5, 2017, noting that Trump "was right" about the FBI delaying the briefing with Obama to have more time to build their case.
"What's the word on how [Obama's] briefing went?" one text from an FBI staffer stated.
"Don't know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and it's a mad house," the reply from his colleague said. "Trump was right. Still not put together... Why do we do this to ourselves. What is wrong with these people."
Comey's memos mentioned that CNN had obtained the dossier, which is now known to contain false allegations against Trump and disinformation from Russian intelligence. The memos said CNN was looking for a "news hook" to report the salacious allegations used to obtain a FISA court warrant to investigate Carter Page. CNN reported claims from "classified documents" that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump" on Jan. 10, 2017, five days later.
"[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
"Holy crap," an agent responded. "All the analysts too?"
"Yep," the first agent said. "All the folks at the Agency as well."
"[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?" an agent responded. "[A]s far as potentially suing y'all[?]"
"[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece," the first agent said.
"If that piece comes out, and Jan 20th comes around... the new AG might have some questions... then yada yada yada... we all get screwed," one agent wrote.
The text messages also show skepticism over the direction of the Flynn investigation and speculation of political motivations behind the investigations.
"[D]oing all this election research - [I] think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency," a text message from August 11, 2016 reads.Comment
-
10 Disturbing Revelations from FBI Special Agent William Barnett on the FBI’s Michael Flynn Probe
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...l-flynn-probe/
1. Barnett believed the predication for the overarching Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign and the Crossfire Razor investigation into Flynn were both unclear and unconvincing.
According to the 302, Barnett thought the investigation was “‘opaque’ with very little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.” He thought the case theory was “supposition on supposition.”
2. Barnett was in the process of closing the Flynn investigation on January 4, 2017, when Peter Strzok intervened on or around the date of an Oval Office meeting where the Flynn investigation was discussed
On election day, November 8, 2016, Barnett said he and another analyst had a “very frank discussion” on closing the Flynn investigation. The analyst believed it was an “exercise in futility.” Barnett said he did not understand the point of the investigation. However, only Strzok was in position to close it.
3. Barnett believed he was “cut out” of an FBI interview with Flynn on January 24, 2017.
4. Barnett says after the Flynn interview, the investigation became “top down,” directed by Andrew McCabe.
5. Barnett said he requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation because he believed it was problematic.
Barnett had requested to be removed from the Flynn investigation in or about early February 2017, citing the DOJ Inspector General looking at the FBI’s handling of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server case and believing that the Flynn investigation could also result in an IG investigation.
By then, he still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, or that the Flynn investigation was leading or headed toward prosecution.
6. The same FBI lawyer who falsified evidence on a surveillance warrant application on Carter Page also signed off on predication for national security letters on the Flynn investigation.
Barnett said that the information received through the national security letters did not change his mind that Flynn was not working with the Russian government.
7. Barnett thought Clinton campaign-donor and Special Counsel Office (SCO) attorney Jeannie Rhee was “obsessed” with Flynn and Russia, and that she had an “agenda.”
Barnett was told to brief on the Flynn investigation to a group including Rhee. He said he went over the investigation, including the assessment that there was no evidence of a crime. Barnett said when he tried to move on to what he thought was a more significant investigation, Rhee stopped him and asked more questions about Flynn. Barnett said he thought she was “obsessed with” Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.
8. The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller “changed everything.”
Barnett said Crossfire Hurricane seemed to be winding down, but President Trump firing Comey and the appointment of Mueller “triggered a significant amount of activity” and “changed everything.” He said “search warrants were being drafted and executed on a regular basis” and SCO attorneys “were very aggressive and were directing things.”
9. Barnett thought there was a “get TRUMP” attitude by some at the Special Counsel Office.
Barnett said incidents involving Trump were interpreted in the most negative manner or in some cases — misinterpreted, and some statements were discounted because they did not already fit the opinions of some at the SCO.
Barnett also said Mueller’s “all stars” had a conviction that there was “something criminal there” and there was a competition as to which attorney was going to find it.
He said there was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more of an attitude of “the evidence is there we just have to find it.”
Barnett said SCO attorneys asked witnesses generic questions and did not seem interested in following up to clarify, and when he did so, he was scolded by another attorney for wasting time.
10. SCO agents joked about wiping their cell phones — which actually happened to at least several dozen phones, purportedly by accident.
Barnett said he was issued a cell phone by the SCO which he did not “wipe” like some of his colleagues. He said he heard other agents “comically” talk about wiping their phones, but was not aware of anyone doing it. As revealed last month by Judicial Watch, senior members of SCO repeatedly and “accidentally” wiped data off at least 27 phones assigned to them.
Barnett said he and others on the SCO would actually mock the investigation into collusion, calling it “Collusion Clue.”
They joked about how the investigation into collusion could be made into a game where investigators are able to choose any character conducting any activity, in any location, and pair that individual with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion.
In summary, Barnett believed the prosecution into Flynn by the SCO was used as a means to “get Trump.”Comment
-
^^^ This. I'm tired of taking the time to read articles from those sites, only to find out with a quick fact-check that they are full of gross misrepresentations or outright lies.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment