LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Are We in the Middle of a Witch Hunt?

Typical of your wooden brain

Feinstein is not privy to everything the FBI has. She's not part of the FBI. She knows and sees only what they want her to see at the moment.

SHe's not part of law enforcement. SHe's not an FBI agent, now is she?

The only ones who "know" anything for certain are the people doing the investigation.

Do you not understand that?

They may have plenty they have not chosen to share with her. And given the obvious attempts at subversion and deflection in the House and Senate, don't you think Comey is going to be careful about what he gives away, knowing any of it could be leaked right back to the White House?

Dianne Feinstein's comments are proof of nothing, except that you're an idiot.

Boxlicker101 said:
It certainly looks like a witch hunt: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/dia...il_job=1729018_05042017&s=al&dkt_nbr=v2f4zyp3
Click to expand...
 
In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party.
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Typical of your wooden brain

Feinstein is not privy to everything the FBI has. She's not part of the FBI. She knows and sees only what they want her to see at the moment.

SHe's not part of law enforcement. SHe's not an FBI agent, now is she?

The only ones who "know" anything for certain are the people doing the investigation.

Do you not understand that?

They may have plenty they have not chosen to share with her. And given the obvious attempts at subversion and deflection in the House and Senate, don't you think Comey is going to be careful about what he gives away, knowing any of it could be leaked right back to the White House?

Dianne Feinstein's comments are proof of nothing, except that you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

They are not proof of anything, which is why the title of the thread is a question, rather than a statement. At the same time, DiFi is one of the senators who could be privy to the details of the investigation, and she says she doesn't know of anything.

I place very little credence in Newsmax when they express an opinion, but this was a series of direct quotes, and they don't seem to be out of context. And I have noticed and commented that there is no actual evidence that untoward anything did occur between Trump and Russia.

In that way, it is vastly different than the attack at Benghazi. Four Americans were murdered there, and Hillary was Sec. of State at the time, so some blame must accrue to her.
 
1. Feinstein is one of a few Senators who are privy only to what the FBI chooses to share with her. None of them get full access to everything.
2. Adam Schiff (House) said he has seen evidence of collusion. They're not all seeing exactly what the FBI knows.
3. The Investigation is in process. It's not DONE.
4. I know you've made the brilliant observation that there's been no conclusive "evidence" made public. And it's the same answer: the Investigation is not DONE.


Boxlicker101 said:
They are not proof of anything, which is why the title of the thread is a question, rather than a statement. At the same time, DiFi is one of the senators who could be privy to the details of the investigation, and she says she doesn't know of anything.

I place very little credence in Newsmax when they express an opinion, but this was a series of direct quotes, and they don't seem to be out of context. And I have noticed and commented that there is no actual evidence that untoward anything did occur between Trump and Russia.

In that way, it is vastly different than the attack at Benghazi. Four Americans were murdered there, and Hillary was Sec. of State at the time, so some blame must accrue to her.
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
1. Feinstein is one of a few Senators who are privy only to what the FBI chooses to share with her. None of them get full access to everything.
2. Adam Schiff (House) said he has seen evidence of collusion. They're not all seeing exactly what the FBI knows.
3. The Investigation is in process. It's not DONE.
4. I know you've made the brilliant observation that there's been no conclusive "evidence" made public. And it's the same answer: the Investigation is not DONE.
Click to expand...

I presume this is what you referenced: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/index.html
It's pretty vague, if it exists at all.
 
Scroll back to when we tried to explain to you over and over what was wrong with Devin Nunes's behavior with sneaking up to the White House.

You didn't get it. Still don't get it. Because you're dense

Nunes had to recuse himself. He's now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for his shenanigans.

Listen very carefully now:

The FBI and Congress are both investigating Trump. They may find no smoking guns. They may conclude, as they did with Benghazi and the e-mails, there's no there there. Not enough for criminal charges. No indictments. Could very well be.

WE. DON'T. KNOW. YET.

Was Benghazi a Witch Hunt? Were the e-mails a witch hunt? I'm guessing you'll say: no.

I'm guessing you saw all sorts of evil, nefarious, criminal things with Hillary.

I'm guessing you don't know any of the suspicious things about Trump's ties to Russia, or don't think it's important that Mike Flynn asked for immunity. You know squat, or rather, what your tiny, dim brain is capable of selectively processing.

You have a very low-watt intelligence, and you try to fit the big complicated world into it. And no matter how anyone tries to spoon feed actual information into your head, you can't process it.

Boxlicker101 said:
I presume this is what you referenced: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/index.html
It's pretty vague, if it exists at all.
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Scroll back to when we tried to explain to you over and over what was wrong with Devin Nunes's behavior with sneaking up to the White House.

You didn't get it. Still don't get it. Because you're dense

Nunes had to recuse himself. He's now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for his shenanigans.

Listen very carefully now:

The FBI and Congress are both investigating Trump. They may find no smoking guns. They may conclude, as they did with Benghazi and the e-mails, there's no there there. Not enough for criminal charges. No indictments. Could very well be.

WE. DON'T. KNOW. YET.

Was Benghazi a Witch Hunt? Were the e-mails a witch hunt? I'm guessing you'll say: no.

I'm guessing you saw all sorts of evil, nefarious, criminal things with Hillary.

I'm guessing you don't know any of the suspicious things about Trump's ties to Russia, or don't think it's important that Mike Flynn asked for immunity. You know squat, or rather, what your tiny, dim brain is capable of selectively processing.

You have a very low-watt intelligence, and you try to fit the big complicated world into it. And no matter how anyone tries to spoon feed actual information into your head, you can't process it.
Click to expand...

Well, if he said "yes," you would say he's like a freak stalker who thinks he's in a relationship with you. Isn't that how agreeing with you works?

I tried it. And now I'm a sex offender...
 
Hey Chris why don't you pay attention to how your president which YOU put in office because LIBERALS is stocking the DHHS with anti-abortion freaks and putting a sworn enemy of contraception in charge of "family planning.".

And since we know you love religion so much, I hope you're happy with the Freedom of Religious Bullshit thing he signed yesterday. You know, making it legal for churches to support political parties without losing their tax exempt status.

Anti-abortion and Christian Fundies infiltrating the Gov't like never before, thanks to you


Chris_Michael said:
Well, if he said "yes," you would say he's like a freak stalker who thinks he's in a relationship with you. Isn't that how agreeing with you works?

I tried it. And now I'm a sex offender...
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Scroll back to when we tried to explain to you over and over what was wrong with Devin Nunes's behavior with sneaking up to the White House.

You didn't get it. Still don't get it. Because you're dense

Nunes had to recuse himself. He's now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for his shenanigans.

Listen very carefully now:

The FBI and Congress are both investigating Trump. They may find no smoking guns. They may conclude, as they did with Benghazi and the e-mails, there's no there there. Not enough for criminal charges. No indictments. Could very well be.

WE. DON'T. KNOW. YET.

Was Benghazi a Witch Hunt? Were the e-mails a witch hunt? I'm guessing you'll say: no.

I'm guessing you saw all sorts of evil, nefarious, criminal things with Hillary.

I'm guessing you don't know any of the suspicious things about Trump's ties to Russia, or don't think it's important that Mike Flynn asked for immunity. You know squat, or rather, what your tiny, dim brain is capable of selectively processing.

You have a very low-watt intelligence, and you try to fit the big complicated world into it. And no matter how anyone tries to spoon feed actual information into your head, you can't process it.
Click to expand...

Neither Benghazi nor the emails were witch hunts. In the former, something bad happened, and this was compounded by Hillary's minions lying about it. At the hearings, which followed shortly after, she got away with waving her arms around ad saying :Who cares?" She never had to answer for the debacle that occurred on her watch.

The emails were also something definite. Hillary admitted to having a computer in her bathroom at home and to using it for official business of the state dept. Later, when ordered by the FBI to turn over the classified info from the computer, she reacted by erasing much of it. The evidence of the erasure was unmistakable. This is called "destroying evidence" and is a felony. It's also a felony for somebody, especially a cabinet member to be so careless with classified info, but Hillary has, apparently, gotten away with this too.

In these instances, there is a gun as smoky as a Texas oil fire. With Trump and Russia, however, there is no evidence that anything improper happened. Trump probably did have some contact with Russian officials, but there is nothing abnormal or suspicious about this. He is, or was, an international businessman who occasionally dealt with other countries and, as a presidential candidate, he had contact with the Russian government. Hillary had the same kind of contacts, except that she was more of a known factor than Trump was.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-contacts-donald-trump-campaign-election/

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The Associated Press in an interview in New York that Russian experts had contacts with people in both the Trump and Clinton campaigns. He said such contacts are “quite natural, quite normal.”

“And our experts, our specialists on the U.S., on international affairs ... Of course they are constantly speaking to their counterparts here, including those from Mr. Trump’s group,” Peskov said.
 
Last edited:
Well, the FBI concluded there was zip, zero, Nada to charge Hillary with.


Lol


Well see what happens with Trump.


Boxlicker101 said:
Neither Benghazi nor the emails were witch hunts. In the former, something bad happened, and this was compounded by Hillary's minions lying about it. At the hearings, which followed shortly after, she got away with waving her arms around ad saying :Who cares?" She never had to answer for the debacle that occurred on her watch.

The emails were also something definite. Hillary admitted to having a computer in her bathroom at home and to using it for official business of the state dept. Later, when ordered by the FBI to turn over the classified info from the computer, she reacted by erasing much of it. The evidence of the erasure was unmistakable. This is called "destroying evidence" and is a felony. It's also a felony for somebody, especially a cabinet member to be so careless with classified info, but Hillary has, apparently, gotten away with this too.

In these instances, there is a gun as smoky as a Texas oil fire. With Trump and Russia, however, there is no evidence that anything improper happened. Trump probably did have some contact with Russian officials, but there is nothing abnormal or suspicious about this. He is, or was, an international businessman who occasionally dealt with other countries and, as a presidential candidate, he had contact with the Russian government. Hillary had the same kind of contacts, except that she was more of a known factor than Trump was.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-contacts-donald-trump-campaign-election/

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The Associated Press in an interview in New York that Russian experts had contacts with people in both the Trump and Clinton campaigns. He said such contacts are “quite natural, quite normal.”

“And our experts, our specialists on the U.S., on international affairs ... Of course they are constantly speaking to their counterparts here, including those from Mr. Trump’s group,” Peskov said.
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Hey Chris why don't you pay attention to how your president which YOU put in office because LIBERALS is stocking the DHHS with anti-abortion freaks and putting a sworn enemy of contraception in charge of "family planning.".

And since we know you love religion so much, I hope you're happy with the Freedom of Religious Bullshit thing he signed yesterday. You know, making it legal for churches to support political parties without losing their tax exempt status.

Anti-abortion and Christian Fundies infiltrating the Gov't like never before, thanks to you
Click to expand...

Oh, so people will realize that the Christian conservatives are Christian conservatives?! No shit! I regret my vote.

Abortion? I guess I'll just have to sacrifice. It's not like I'm getting laid anytime soon. Amirite? ;)
 
Comey declined to press charges. He's independent. The FBI found no evidence of "intent" and declined to press charges.

So it's not accurate to say the Dem AG concluded that.

If the FBI had gone to the DOJ and asked for prosecution and Lynch said No--which is exactly what is going to happen with the Russian investigation--then you'd have a point. But that's not what happened.

LMAO.

How do you know there's no evidence? The FBI has not presented any. You don't know what they have or don't have. No one does.

How many times can anyone explain this to you?

What about "ongoing investigation" do you not understand?

Boxlicker101 said:
So far, the Dem. AG concluded that. But the question is still open.

Also, so far, there is no evidence against Trump of any unlawful collusion with Russia. And this is not just my opinion: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/05...arding-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-485597
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Comey declined to press charges. He's independent. The FBI found no evidence of "intent" and declined to press charges.

So it's not accurate to say the Dem AG concluded that.

If the FBI had gone to the DOJ and asked for prosecution and Lynch said No--which is exactly what is going to happen with the Russian investigation--then you'd have a point. But that's not what happened.

LMAO.

How do you know there's no evidence? The FBI has not presented any. You don't know what they have or don't have. No one does.

How many times can anyone explain this to you?

What about "ongoing investigation" do you not understand?
Click to expand...

The FBI does not prefer charges. They investigate and turn their findings over to the AG, who either prefers charges or not. Hillary could still be charged with something RE her handling of classified material. She probably won't be, because there would be little point to it now, but if she runs for some other office, she might be charged with something.

What I said is "So far there has been no evidence against Trump," and Di Fi said the same thing. (emphasis added.) Something might turn up, but I doubt it. Are you familiar with the expression "wishful thinking?" :confused:
 
So far we have seen zero evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

The FBI is not sharing anything. You don't know what they have or not and neither does Feinstein.

You're acting like they've laid all their cards on the table already, and you don't see anything, except, they haven't laid ANYTHING out yet. Nothing. We know squat.

I think it's been established; Hillary was "careless" but not criminal. Period. The FBI recommended no charges, because there wasn't any evidence whatsoever of criminal intent.







Boxlicker101 said:
The FBI does not prefer charges. They investigate and turn their findings over to the AG, who either prefers charges or not. Hillary could still be charged with something RE her handling of classified material. She probably won't be, because there would be little point to it now, but if she runs for some other office, she might be charged with something.

What I said is "So far there has been no evidence against Trump," and Di Fi said the same thing. (emphasis added.) Something might turn up, but I doubt it. Are you familiar with the expression "wishful thinking?" :confused:
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
So far we have seen zero evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

The FBI is not sharing anything. You don't know what they have or not and neither does Feinstein.

You're acting like they've laid all their cards on the table already, and you don't see anything, except, they haven't laid ANYTHING out yet. Nothing. We know squat.

I think it's been established; Hillary was "careless" but not criminal. Period. The FBI recommended no charges, because there wasn't any evidence whatsoever of criminal intent.
Click to expand...

When no evidence appears after this length of time, you have to start thinking there isn't any. :cool: YOU were colluding with the Russians. There is no proof of this yet but, in your book, that doesn't mean anything. :rolleyes:
 
This "length of time?"

Apparently you think an FBI investigation should be like a Twitter post. It started in July. It could take years to conclude. And we will not know of evidence until it's done.

It must be nice to be so coddled in your own stupidity and ignorance.


QUOTE=Boxlicker101;85686902]When no evidence appears after this length of time, you have to start thinking there isn't any. :cool: YOU were colluding with the Russians. There is no proof of this yet but, in your book, that doesn't mean anything. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
 
Carnal_Flower said:
This "length of time?"

Apparently you think an FBI investigation should be like a Twitter post. It started in July. It could take years to conclude. And we will not know of evidence until it's done.

It must be nice to be so coddled in your own stupidity and ignorance.


QUOTE=Boxlicker101;85686902]When no evidence appears after this length of time, you have to start thinking there isn't any. :cool: YOU were colluding with the Russians. There is no proof of this yet but, in your book, that doesn't mean anything. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly mean to say we should spend the next four or eight years shirking the legit work of The Republic because of this nonsense? :eek:

If no evidence has come to light in almost a year, it seems very likely that none ever will. :eek:
 
How do you know no evidence has come to light?



Do you honestly mean to say we should spend the next four or eight years shirking the legit work of The Republic because of this nonsense? :eek:

If no evidence has come to light in almost a year, it seems very likely that none ever will. :eek:[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Boxlicker101
Trump Approval Rating Continues to Climb
Replies
23
Views
844
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Boxlicker101
Trump compared to Churchill
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
The_Trouvere
The_Trouvere
Boxlicker101
Sheriff Joe to run for the Senate
Replies
9
Views
519
phrodeau
phrodeau
Boxlicker101
George Soros: Terrorist
Replies
9
Views
735
ishtat
ishtat
someoneyouknow
Nunberg: Russia investigation not a witch hunt
Replies
0
Views
263
someoneyouknow
someoneyouknow
Back
Top