Spygate is unravelling

[JimC]

What part of the concept of "testify" vs "charged" don't you understand, Cunt?

[rainbow]

You know Killary got told to answer, finally, about that private email server, right?

You haven't explained why anyone should care. She isn't the President.

And what has Assange got to do with this?

Exactly!

And Snowden?

Precisely!!

Your incuriosity about Hillary, and why she had a secret server, why she destroyed info that had been requested, is quite telling. Either you don't know, or you don't care. Either is kind of amusing, especially when you are asking me to lead you through it.

I'll be vaguely interested if something comes out of it. It really will make no difference to anything, one way or another.

Are you hoping it will be a convenient smokescreen for your buddy "Archie Bunker" Trump?

[Cunt]

I'll be vaguely interested if something comes out of it. It really will make no difference to anything, one way or another.

Are you hoping it will be a convenient smokescreen for your buddy "Archie Bunker" Trump?

Sure hope you feel better soon, rainbow. Whatever has you confounded should pass if you eat right, and exercise.

[Joe]

Why would you be suggesting it is 'my home work'?

Is this not something of broader public interest? Or is your interest solely in finding out if I'm right or wrong about the particulars.

I know several of you have suggested that 'Judicial Watch' is unreliable, but the character of Fitton doesn't come into it much, once judges have ruled.

It's not just her emails, it's the rest of her contacts. Why would she want to keep them on a server that the government couldn't review?

Probably really juicy recipes...wouldn't want those getting into the public eye.

I'm not suggesting. I'm telling you to do your own work or be dismissed as wrong again (#FAKENEWS). After all, I'm not the guy who started a thread about it and in discussions among intelligent people, that puts the burden of proof on you.

Put up, or onto the kill file with you.

[Cunt]

Why would you be suggesting it is 'my home work'?

Is this not something of broader public interest? Or is your interest solely in finding out if I'm right or wrong about the particulars.

I know several of you have suggested that 'Judicial Watch' is unreliable, but the character of Fitton doesn't come into it much, once judges have ruled.

It's not just her emails, it's the rest of her contacts. Why would she want to keep them on a server that the government couldn't review?

Probably really juicy recipes...wouldn't want those getting into the public eye.

I'm not suggesting. I'm telling you to do your own work or be dismissed as wrong again (#FAKENEWS). After all, I'm not the guy who started a thread about it and in discussions among intelligent people, that puts the burden of proof on you.

Put up, or onto the kill file with you.

What would you expect me to 'prove' for you, Joe?

That republicans are more likely to see this than democrats?

[Joe]

Why would you be suggesting it is 'my home work'?

Is this not something of broader public interest? Or is your interest solely in finding out if I'm right or wrong about the particulars.

I know several of you have suggested that 'Judicial Watch' is unreliable, but the character of Fitton doesn't come into it much, once judges have ruled.

It's not just her emails, it's the rest of her contacts. Why would she want to keep them on a server that the government couldn't review?

Probably really juicy recipes...wouldn't want those getting into the public eye.

I'm not suggesting. I'm telling you to do your own work or be dismissed as wrong again (#FAKENEWS). After all, I'm not the guy who started a thread about it and in discussions among intelligent people, that puts the burden of proof on you.

Put up, or onto the kill file with you.

What would you expect me to 'prove' for you, Joe?

That republicans are more likely to see this than democrats?

Really? You can't remember the post before last?

I prefer to think you're dodging the question rather than being as dumb as that suggests.

So, you want to prove your assertion that HRC's email testimony "connects to spygate," or admit you were blowing smoke?

[Brian Peacock]

I prefer to think you're dodging the question rather than being as dumb as that suggests.

Psychologists call it 'performative ignorance'.

[Joe]

I prefer to think you're dodging the question rather than being as dumb as that suggests.

Psychologists call it 'performative ignorance'.

IIRC, Forrest Gump's mama used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

I wonder at what point it ceases being a performance and becomes a trait. I've always felt that intelligence is as much part application and habits of mind as it is innate ability, and that the former can fatally undermine the latter.

However, not being a psychologist, I'll happily admit my lack of qualifications to opine with any authority.

[rainbow]

I'll be vaguely interested if something comes out of it. It really will make no difference to anything, one way or another.

Are you hoping it will be a convenient smokescreen for your buddy "Archie Bunker" Trump?

Sure hope you feel better soon, rainbow. Whatever has you confounded should pass if you eat right, and exercise.

...a pathetic attempt at a swerve.

Did you notice that Trump is getting unsteady on his pins?

Senility?

[Tero]

When Biden is president, will he appoint Obama to deal with Trump's illegal activities as ptesident? Negotiate with Putin to lift sanctions innexchange for pee pee tapes?

[Joe]

Why would you be suggesting it is 'my home work'?

Is this not something of broader public interest? Or is your interest solely in finding out if I'm right or wrong about the particulars.

I know several of you have suggested that 'Judicial Watch' is unreliable, but the character of Fitton doesn't come into it much, once judges have ruled.

It's not just her emails, it's the rest of her contacts. Why would she want to keep them on a server that the government couldn't review?

Probably really juicy recipes...wouldn't want those getting into the public eye.

I'm not suggesting. I'm telling you to do your own work or be dismissed as wrong again (#FAKENEWS). After all, I'm not the guy who started a thread about it and in discussions among intelligent people, that puts the burden of proof on you.

Put up, or onto the kill file with you.

What would you expect me to 'prove' for you, Joe?

That republicans are more likely to see this than democrats?

Really? You can't remember the post before last?

I prefer to think you're dodging the question rather than being as dumb as that suggests.

So, you want to prove your assertion that HRC's email testimony "connects to spygate," or admit you were blowing smoke?

I'll take the silence to mean you can't prove a connection to spygate. No surprise, since it's not a real thing.

However, since you've spent the last 30 pages faffing about and conflating spygate with Trump's pitiful attempts to discredit the Russia investigation, I will point out a connection between it and HRC's emails. Remember,

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Trump claims he was joking, but the Russians apparently can't take a joke. When Trump asked, they complied. From Mueller (Vol 1, page 49):

On July 27, 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton’s personal office <redacted>. Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The “30,000 emails” were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State.

Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office. After candidate Trump’s remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain <redacted> including an email account belonging to Clinton aide <redacted>. The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.

That, among other things, is a legitimate reason to investigate possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian interests.

Funny how you forgot that.

[Cunt]

Funny how I didn't forget that.

Not only did you and I remember that, so did everyone who could prosecute, if that action were illegal.

Looks like it was either perfectly legal, or the Dems are incompetent keystone cops.

I'm going to trust that they did their honest best to ruin Trump. If only he were as easy a target as they pretend he is...

[Cunt]

When Biden is president, will he appoint Obama to deal with Trump's illegal activities as ptesident? Negotiate with Putin to lift sanctions innexchange for pee pee tapes?

I got a copy of the tapes. They weren't even good. I was supposed to pass them back to AS, but screw him, these are going in the trash. (he didn't even offer to pay postage)

[Joe]

Funny how I didn't forget that.

Not only did you and I remember that, so did everyone who could prosecute, if that action were illegal.

Looks like it was either perfectly legal, or the Dems are incompetent keystone cops.

I'm going to trust that they did their honest best to ruin Trump. If only he were as easy a target as they pretend he is...

Yes, it was found to be a coincidence, after the perfectly justified investigation. You can believe your unfounded paranoid fantasies, but the evidence shows that the FBI acted responsibly by investigating a counterintelligence concern.

Oh, and speaking of HRC's emails, how were they trying to "ruin Trump," when their investigation is widely considered to have made him President?

I'm going to trust that you have it wrong again, since that's been my experience with your silly proclamations.

[Cunt]

Oh, and speaking of HRC's emails, how were they trying to "ruin Trump," when their investigation is widely considered to have made him President?

Totally trustworthy. Their investigation was not at all one-sided, and they shouldn't even wonder why a senior government official created a secret server and hid evidence from her bosses.

Nothing to that. She was the best of the Democrats, probably kept that stuff secret because she didn't want to share her recipes.

I'm going to trust that you have it wrong again, since that's been my experience with your silly proclamations.

I have it wrong a lot, I'll admit. My biggest mistakes were trusting Democrat nonsense, like claiming they were the side of womans rights, race rights and that their Diversity, Inclusion and Equity were all good things.

Seeing they were just as corrupt as anyone, but used those causes as masks, really helped me understand more about how selfish the wealthy elite really are.