damning proof of innocence that FBI withheld in Russian probe

Where are your counter sources pervert?

They are everywhere you look, scumbag. It's called common knowledge.

As I explained before, i don't waste my time debunking giant piles of bullshit point by point and turd by turd.

If lamebrains like you, noisenatta and the rest of the the goofball contingent here want to gobble that shit down, be my guest.

No skin off my ass.
 
Confession: I did not read the entire thread, just the OP and the comments on the first page.

Question: What is the purpose of constantly posting these poorly-researched and extremely-wishful opinion pieces? Is it to bolster the comrades in the Trump trenches? "Oh look, fellows! Someone got published writing what we believe in!" Is it in the hopes that some sane person, somewhere, will turn to the Derp Side and become a comrade in the Trump trenches too? Are you guys all down there dying from mustard gas or Foxbrain or something, and need new cannon fodder? Is it like Green Stamps, where if you make enough posts supporting our Glorious TinyHands Leader, you can eventually get a free toaster or set of towels or something? Seriously, what satisfaction do you get out of posting b.s.?

They are driven to it by their hatred of:

1) Hillary Clinton above and beyond anyone and anything else,
2) all other women who are rich, powerful and smarter than they'll ever be,
3) all other people, both men and women, who express decency and compassion for other people,
4) and anyone else who they instinctively know are better people than they are.

It is ingrained in their nature to spread filthy lies just like it's ingrained in a snake's nature to bite.
 
They are driven to it by their hatred of:

1) Hillary Clinton above and beyond anyone and anything else,
2) all other women who are rich, powerful and smarter than they'll ever be,
3) all other people, both men and women, who express decency and compassion for other people,
4) and anyone else who they instinctively know are better people than they are.

It is ingrained in their nature to spread filthy lies just like it's ingrained in a snake's nature to bite.
I'm driven by repulsion to un-elected bureaucrats who think they can overturn an election by nefarious malfeasance.
 
Now if you want to stick you head in the ground and not look at the facts

George Neumayr's piece on the "Brennan conspiracy", which you linked to in post #74, disposes of what was almost certainly the original source of suspicions about the Trump campaign like this:

"half-baked tips from British intelligence".

That's it. No mention of what these tips were, no attempt to show why they were "half-baked", nothing. Dismissed.

Stick MY head in the ground?

What Neumayr wrote isn't honest analysis, it's a cheap hit piece.
 
Thanks, noise.

Oh hell, the article is by GEORGE NEUMAYR. I regret to say I've come across him before. He's a Catholic so ultra that he believes the reigning Pope is part of a conspiracy to destroy the Church. I bet he can prove it to his own satisfaction, too.

At least the article mentions "half-baked tips from British intelligence". Just that, no details. Those would be warnings of "suspicious interactions" between Trump associates and Russian agents, passed as a matter of urgency by GCHQ and MI6 to Brennan in 2015-16. If Neumayr calls them half-baked, that proves they must be worthless, right?

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Yet McCabe claimed that Trump was a possible Russian agent without producing any evidence, what do you say to that? When Desh goes around accusing all and sundry of being Russian plants, we know that she's just an imbecile but McCabe is far more sinister and malevolent.

McCabe’s sensationalistic speculation that the president of the United States is a possible foreign agent is a far more consequential and damaging story to the common good than a half-baked hoax orchestrated by a Hollywood actor. Yet the media shows McCabe’s claim no skepticism whatsoever. They let McCabe speak vaguely about his reasons for authorizing an investigation into Trump. They never ask him about the FBI’s reliance on Hillary Clinton’s opposition research. They never ask him about the Inspector General’s findings that he lied to investigators and engaged in criminal leaking. They let him smear the president without hesitation.

Were it not for the media’s detestation for Trump, McCabe’s book tour would have been embarrassing and rocky. Instead, he regales hosts with a self-serving account that is based upon a series of false assumptions, such as, that Trump’s firing of James Comey constituted an act of obstruction of justice. The media has yet to ask McCabe how that act, which falls within Trump’s constitutional authority, met the FBI’s criteria for treating a president as a probable foreign agent.

Smollett’s hoax no doubt wasted police resources and he will pay a price for that. But will the peddlers of the Trump-Russia collusion claim like McCabe be held accountable for the millions of dollars they have cost taxpayers for a politicized investigation? We’re told that Mueller is finally wrapping up his probe and will shortly send his report to the Justice Department. Judging by the absence of any leaks about Trump-Russia collusion up to this point, the report is likely to disappoint the media and Democrats. Even James Clapper, the stridently anti-Trump former intelligence director, is bracing for the possibility it will come up short in proving collusion.

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper told CNN. But no sooner had Clapper said that than he threw out the same irresponsible speculation as McCabe about Trump as a possible Russian agent owing to his foreign policy. Clapper said, “The strange thing I think that has bothered a lot of people both in and out of the intelligence community is this strange personal deference to Putin by the president. I’ve speculated in the past that the way Putin behaves is to treat President Trump as an asset.”

A responsible media would call former intelligence officials out for trafficking in such thin claims, not hire them as pundits. But at a time when reporters pride themselves on rejecting “neutrality,” the Clappers, Brennans, and McCabes can count on an uncritical audience. The media has always been overwhelmingly liberal, but as Lara Logan of CBS points out it is now completely free of any journalistic restraints to mitigate that bias even slightly. News and opinion have collapsed into each other, she told podcaster Mike Ritland: “Although the media has always been — historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today. That means we’ve become political activists in a sense and, some could argue, propagandists — and there’s some merit to that.”

As a consequence of reducing their profession to a left-wing political party, journalists have become suckers for all manner of anti-Trump stories, no matter how outlandish. They promise to avoid hoaxes in the future and jumping to hasty conclusions, but it is hard to take them seriously when they continue to humor the McCabes in the most misleading story of all.

George Neumayr
https://spectator.org/scams-big-and-small/
 
Last edited:
George Neumayr's piece on the "Brennan conspiracy", which you linked to in post #74, disposes of what was almost certainly the original source of suspicions about the Trump campaign like this:

"half-baked tips from British intelligence".

That's it. No mention of what these tips were, no attempt to show why they were "half-baked", nothing. Dismissed.

Stick MY head in the ground?

What Neumayr wrote isn't honest analysis, it's a cheap hit piece.

Good grief, just about every fucking article on Trump from CNN is a cheap hit piece!!
 
Last edited:
Yet McCabe claimed that Trump was a possible Russian agent without producing any evidence, what do you say to that?

Not an agent. Only an idiot would recruit someone like Trump as an intelligence agent. Whether he was under any kind of Kremlin influence is another matter. Unfortunately we may never know.

The questions that arose about "suspicious interactions" between some of Trump's associates and Russian agents in 2015-16 were legitimate and had to be investigated. Whether or not there turns out to be anything at the bottom of it is irrelevant to that judgment - it was their plain duty. A mythical "deep state" conspiracy is not required.
 
Not an agent. Only an idiot would recruit someone like Trump as an intelligence agent. Whether he was under any kind of Kremlin influence is another matter. Unfortunately we may never know.

The questions that arose about "suspicious interactions" between some of Trump's associates and Russian agents in 2015-16 were legitimate and had to be investigated. Whether or not there turns out to be anything at the bottom of it is irrelevant to that judgment - it was their plain duty. A mythical "deep state" conspiracy is not required.
Trump is too stupid to be an agent, he’s more of a Russian dupe, they dangled a few carrots before his money grubbing eyes, and he let his bag men do the dirty work.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...vestigation-trump-working-for-russians-223970
 
If our great president, President Trump is stupid, what does that say about the smartest woman in the world who was defeated (in a landslide) by him?

Trump is one of only two presidents in over a century who was elected on a minority of the vote. The other one was Dubya, but at least he came closer.

Trump's achievement may never be repeated, unless he falls short by say 5 million in 2020 and the electoral college still waves him through.
 
Trump is one of only two presidents in over a century who was elected on a minority of the vote. The other one was Dubya, but at least he came closer.

Trump's achievement may never be repeated, unless he falls short by say 5 million in 2020 and the electoral college still waves him through.
If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, would you have accepted the fact that she won? Of course you would have. You don't appear to be able to accept the fact that your candidate lost. Period. None of you can.
 
If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, would you have accepted the fact that she won? Of course you would have. You don't appear to be able to accept the fact that your candidate lost. Period. None of you can.
I accept the fact, I just don’t think you should lie about the results.
 
The left claimed that she was and she lost in an electoral landslide.
I’ve seen them claim that she was the most qualified, I have not seen them claim she’s the smartest women in the world. Those are your words.
 
I accept the fact, I just don’t think you should lie about the results.

I didn't, she was ahead by 12 points and would win in a landslide, no path to the presidency for Trump. With that context and the media and the far left loons and Soros backing her, she should have won in a landslide but it was Trump who won...in an electoral landslide.
 
I’ve seen them claim that she was the most qualified, I have not seen them claim she’s the smartest women in the world. Those are your words.


The Hillary Project ^ | Monday, November 19, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 11/20/2007 5:35:34 AM PST by IrishMike

"We had a co-president during the Clinton reign who was dubbed "The Smartest Woman in the World." No, it wasn't Bill; although considered intelligent, Bill didn't benefit from the application of that superlative.

Truth be known, Hillary Clinton's intellect was always over-estimated. If you want insight into her brainpower, you can ask the Clintons' erstwhile right-hand man Dick Morris. He'll tell you that she could double her I.Q. with one serving of fish. Well, actually, I say that, but he will certainly characterize her in none too flattering terms.

But I'll tell you what characterizes her intellect better than most anything else. There has been a lot of talk about how she damaged herself in the last Democrat debate, and her waffling on the subject of driver's licenses for illegal aliens especially stood out. She seemed to be for it; she "understood" it; being asked about it was "gotcha politics"; then, later, she seemed to be ... oh, my head is spinning.

Now, some have mentioned that she was obviously unprepared for the question. Unprepared? It was a no-brainer, meaning, even Lady MacBeth should have been able to answer it. But, OK, the informed among us know that she's at heart a socialist and is more than happy to facilitate illegal immigration. However, she's also a calculating political operator who is willing to say whatever she must to curry favor with the sheeple.

So here's my question: How is it that the smartest woman in the world couldn't figure out that 70 to 80 percent of the electorate (including most Democrats) recoil at the idea of giving invaders driver's licenses? It was a simple calculation. And she is so far ahead in the polls tracking the race for the Democrat nomination that she didn't have to worry about her hold on the radical left. All she had to do was boldly and unabashedly come out against such measures and she would have won hearts and minds in middle America. It would have helped her during the general election (assuming she wins the nomination) and would have even won over some Democrats who are currently supporting the other pretenders.

Anyway, if Hillary Clinton couldn't figure this out, how is she going to be able to figure out a way to combat Islamic jihad?

The smartest woman in the world? It's an insult to women everywhere."
 
Back
Top