Just reported on ABC News... Brit Intel picked up conversations...

Darth Omar said:
Depends what they're meeting about. You understand we aren't at war with Russia so the mere fact people [even campaign people] talk to them is meaningless, right? Flynn met with them and nothing illegal happened---according to the FBI.

If you were able to be objective about it, you'd see that as a strike against the theory, because there *should have* been something there and there wasn't.
Click to expand...

If nothing happened why did he lie?
Why did the Donald fire him?
Oh, that's right, Flynn's meeting was illegal, a violation of the Logan Act.
 
Darth Omar said:
Nunes didn't report to Trump regarding the Russian investigation. That would have been unethical.

He went to Trump first because Trump [and/or some of his people] would have been the *victims* of illegal unmasking by someone in the previous administration---probably Susan Rice.

Since Nunes didn't brief Trump on the Russian investigation, the charge against him is bogus. It was a political play by Schiff and it worked, because congressional republicans wouldn't stand up to him.
Click to expand...

Prove it lol
 
Rune said:
If nothing happened why did he lie?
Why did the Donald fire him?
Oh, that's right, Flynn's meeting was illegal, a violation of the Logan Act.
Click to expand...
nobody has ever been prosecuted, and the "illegality" was a technicality at best..it's a non-story
 
anatta said:
nobody has ever been prosecuted, and the "illegality" was a technicality at best..it's a non-story
Click to expand...

He was fired from what should have been the most trusted position on earth....for being untrustworthy.

It is a YUGE story.
 
Rune said:
Prove Nunes didn't inform trump.
I call it a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Click to expand...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 
Right said:
As the OP source it is your responsibility to provide a link. Typical lib, hates personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Look at the thread title, dimwit.

Says right there where I heard it.

Geez Louise you are one stupid fucking contard. :palm:
 
Nomad said:
Look at the thread title, dimwit.

Says right there where I heard it.

Geez Louise you are one stupid fucking contard. :palm:
Click to expand...
5. When Posting Copyrighted Material.. All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the first few paragraphs and then link to the article for the rest. Please don't repost entire articles here.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Click to expand...
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?2-Rules-of-the-Board!
 
Right said:
5. When Posting Copyrighted Material.. All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the first few paragraphs and then link to the article for the rest. Please don't repost entire articles here.

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Click to expand...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?2-Rules-of-the-Board!
Click to expand...

Dude... you are just "WOW!!!! stupid", aren't you?

I merely repeated what I HEARD AND SAW on a TV EVENING NEWS REPORT.

So show me where I posted copyrighted material, numb nuts.

Do you have to work at being such a complete idiot or are you a natural talent?
 
anatta said:
nobody has ever been prosecuted, and the "illegality" was a technicality at best..it's a non-story
Click to expand...

Yeah; but it's his party and:

HE'LL CRY IF HE WANTS TOO
CRY IF HE WANTS TOO
CRY IF HE WANTS TOO

YOU WOULD CRY TOO, if the left was your party.
 
anatta said:
Manafort is not a "Trump Staffer" but for a month, and he would be an agent of Ukraine -
where he had long time financial ties. Not Russia.

Further Manafort was campaign manager for only a short time- would his Uk ties have automatically influenced or colluded Trump with Putin? There is absolutely no evidence, despite your constant reaching.

Your language is bombastic and inexact - everybody is a "Russian operative" in your eyes.
Click to expand...
Russia, Ukraine, it's all the same to these dopes.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Rune said:
It is truly close enough dopey.
Click to expand...

gawd almighty..do you know what the current gov't of Ukraine is? It's decidedly anti-Russian in the fact
it is fighting Russian backed Separatists in the East. There is evidence of Spetznaz there too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top