Psycho-pathology of Trump Supporters

anatta said:
POTUS needs to de-classify the FISA and the EC for the FBI investigation.
That would go a long way to completing the puzzle according to Meadows
Click to expand...

There’s more than ample justification to appoint an SP to investigate the investigators—as we speak.

Or put it this way—compare it to the justification in the Mullet appointment. What did they have? The Dossier?

In contrast, several people associated with the initial Russian investigation have been demoted or fired. The Strzok texts are suggestive of a criminal conspiracy against a sitting president.

But who knows, maybe Huber has been busy.
 
Darth Omar said:
There’s more than ample justification to appoint an SP to investigate the investigators—as we speak.

Or put it this way—compare it to the justification in the Mullet appointment. What did they have? The Dossier?

In contrast, several people associated with the initial Russian investigation have been demoted or fired. The Strzok texts are suggestive of a criminal conspiracy against a sitting president.

But who knows, maybe Huber has been busy.
Click to expand...
I have no confidence in Huber.
Even though McCabe is under grand jury investigation he's low hanging fruit.

Sessions is the roadblock that enables Rosenweasel to resist Congressional pressure.

Time is running out for Congress assuming the Dems take over and Horowitz can only do so much
 
Darth Omar said:
Being warned of ‘suspicious activity’ isn’t evidence of collusion. Manaforts indictments arent collusion.
Click to expand...

The correct question to ask is not whether there was collusion, but whether there were enough indications by summer of 2016 to justify and even require investigation.

If there were, then Brennan, Comey and the rest did their duty under difficult - actually unprecedented - circumstances.

If there were not, then there was a politically motivated conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign, presumably with the aim of stopping him being elected, and when that failed, to undermine his presidency.

I know which explanation works best for me. And please note, I am undecided as to whether there actually was collusion - that's a separate question.
 
HillbillyStyle said:
I think every state should require ID to vote and on top i think your vote should be a visible vote. You walk in. Hit a button on a table who your voting for and you can see your vote being added on a big screen for all to see with members of both parties watching. Then all precincts turn ther total in to the state where its televised for all to see, once all votes are in its added to the national map on who won what, all televised.
Click to expand...

What a moronic idea. Let's say you move out of your trailer into the big city where suddenly you find yourself surrounded by -- GASP -- libruls. You really want your librul neighbors to watch you cast a vote for the current Reichwing wannabe-dictator? Let's make it even more fun for you. You're on the public dole so you live in an area with other poor ppl, at least half of whom are -- GASP -- people of color. You really want those ppl of color to watch you vote for the current racist (R) candidate?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
The correct question to ask is not whether there was collusion, but whether there were enough indications by summer of 2016 to justify and even require investigation.

If there were, then Brennan, Comey and the rest did their duty under difficult - actually unprecedented - circumstances.

If there were not, then there was a politically motivated conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign, presumably with the aim of stopping him being elected, and when that failed, to undermine his presidency.

I know which explanation works best for me. And please note, I am undecided as to whether there actually was collusion - that's a separate question.
Click to expand...

In terms of the origin of the investigation—it’s the only question.

Because when you subtract collusion between Trump and Russia it’s a counterintelligence investigation. You don’t appoint criminal prosecutors to do counterintelligence.

Like I said, there’s much better justification to appoint an SP to investigate the investigation—or the origin of it, at minimum. If Strzok and co, were trying to affect an election and/or thwart a sitting president and they get away with it—we have attained official Banana Republic status.

Keep in mind you could find yourself on the wrong side of it.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
The correct question to ask is not whether there was collusion, but whether there were enough indications by summer of 2016 to justify and even require investigation.

If there were, then Brennan, Comey and the rest did their duty under difficult - actually unprecedented - circumstances.

If there were not, then there was a politically motivated conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign, presumably with the aim of stopping him being elected, and when that failed, to undermine his presidency.

I know which explanation works best for me. And please note, I am undecided as to whether there actually was collusion - that's a separate question.
Click to expand...
At least you understand that the EC is key to finding out what the investigation started out with.

Also phony FISA's ( need that released too) and an extreme animus by Strzok/Page and Andy "insurance policy"McCabe is evidence that however it started isn't as important as how corruptive the investigation was run
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes and I think it's not only stupid but antidemocratic. In a Democracy one should have the liberty to express their political opposition to the status quo by opting out, that is to say, not voting.
Click to expand...

Australia is a democracy, perhaps too much of one, seeing how their PMs seem to come and go with alarming regularity.
 
If the Brennan-Comey gang was trying to interfere in the election, they made a piss poor job of it. No public announcement that Trump was under investigation (unlike HC just before the election - how's that for interference?). No big leak of the Steele dossier - Steele couldn't even get the Washington Post to carry it.

Hmm, this theory doesn't seem to be working. So we make some adjustments: it wasn't about election interference, it was about insurance. That's it! Didn't the known conspirator Strzok text about an insurance policy?

I've seen this sort of thing countless times when I was arguing with 9/11 "truthers" at Amazon Politics. First, decide on the Answer. There coudn't possibly be any hint of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign, so it must have been a politically-motivated conspiracy by the Deep State (which we discovered last week, lol). Next, search the record for corroboration. Doesn't have to be provable, just enough to keep the narrative going. And if you search hard enough, you can always find something.

It's classic conspiracy theory.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
If the Brennan-Comey gang was trying to interfere in the election, they made a piss poor job of it. No public announcement that Trump was under investigation (unlike HC just before the election - how's that for interference?). No big leak of the Steele dossier - Steele couldn't even get the Washington Post to carry it.

Hmm, this theory doesn't seem to be working. So we make some adjustments: it wasn't about election interference, it was about insurance. That's it! Didn't the known conspirator Strzok text about an insurance policy?

I've seen this sort of thing countless times when I was arguing with 9/11 "truthers" at Amazon Politics. First, decide on the Answer. There coudn't possibly be any hint of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign, so it must have been a politically-motivated conspiracy by the Deep State (which we discovered last week, lol). Next, search the record for corroboration. Doesn't have to be provable, just enough to keep the narrative going. And if you search hard enough, you can always find something.

It's classic conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

If anything, it’s a case competing conspiracy theories lol.

Trump/Russia is a conspiracy theory by the same standard you’re using to judge the Deep State conspiracy theory. All the right ingredients are there: people assuming from the outset that Trump conspired with Putin
to affect the election—and the only basis for it are some facts; which, when they are arranged in a certain way form the preferred conclusion.

And the ‘thinking’ lefties [as opposed to the mindless ones] are at least intuitively aware of it because they’ve backed off from collusion. I put you in the former category, btw.

In a certain sense, every criminal investigation is a kind of conspiracy theory. Investigations start with a set of facts [they even call it a fact pattern]; an hypothesis is formed based on said facts. Then the hypothesis is tested.

It’s call criminal ‘science’ for a reason.

The fact pattern surrounding the origin of the Russian investigation warrants a criminal investigation. The Deep State conspiracy theory is a straw man. All that is necessary for the *criminal theory* to be true is a cabal of actors conspiring to subvert an election or unseat a president through the abuse of power. The actors even have names: McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and others. Several of them have already been fired, demoted or forced to leave their jobs. And you can be assured a few of them are hoping democrats take take House before things start to happen to them.

This isn’t Tin Foil Hat stuff.
 
Darth Omar said:
If anything, it’s a case competing conspiracy theories lol.
Click to expand...

Those of us who believe that an investigation was justified by the summer of 2016 don't keep shifting our ground. We believe that an investigation was justified, even required, on the basis of intelligence at the time about some of Trump's associates. Comey and the others were doing their job, and no conspiracy theory is needed to explain what they did. That remains true whether or not evidence of collusion is eventually found.

As for the famous "insurance policy", what does it mean? It only makes sense if Comey et al. had a reasonable expectation of finding evidence of collusion. They couldn't just make stuff up. Again, they were doing their job, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy. Admittedly I don't suppose they would have shed tears if the result was to sink Trump, but the same can be said of many of us.
 
I've lost patience trying to get these guyz to look at the conspiracy.
Read a book, Put on Hannity for a night. Sarah Carter/John Solomon.

Start thinking "weasel moves' ( Comey) instead of looking to defend this crappola.

It's not something that can be gone over in a few words. It's complicated.
They did it that way to cover their tracks and take advantage of "classified""
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Those of us who believe that an investigation was justified by the summer of 2016 don't keep shifting our ground. We believe that an investigation was justified, even required, on the basis of intelligence at the time about some of Trump's associates. Comey and the others were doing their job, and no conspiracy theory is needed to explain what they did. That remains true whether or not evidence of collusion is eventually found.

As for the famous "insurance policy", what does it mean? It only makes sense if Comey et al. had a reasonable expectation of finding evidence of collusion. They couldn't just make stuff up. Again, they were doing their job, not engaging in some sinister conspiracy. Admittedly I don't suppose they would have shed tears if the result was to sink Trump, but the same can be said of many of us.
Click to expand...

Straight up: Mullet and Rosenstein are both conflicted and should have recused from the investigation. If Sessions recused, they should recuse as well. But that double-standard in justice goes all the way back to how the Clinton email investigation was handled by Strzok and Comey.

If Mullet gives Trump the same slap on the wrist Hillary got, The Resistance will go postal—and we both know it. In fact, with the way some of the more deranged lefties are carrying on Mullet may need his own security detail in that event.

It’s absolutely reasonable that the ‘insurance policy’ IS the Mullet investigation. Strzok and Lisa Page were leaking to WashPo about the supposedly secret FISA warrants—forget that it’s unethical, at minimum.

Why did they do that?

It’s reasonable to suspect they wanted the Russian investigation to stay in the news in April of 2017. When was Mullet appointed? One month later, in May of 2017. After, Comey leaked his memo ‘with the hope’ it would lead to an SP appointment.

It’s reasonable to suspect that may have been the coordinated plan [aka conspiracy] all along. Strzok’s opinion at the time was ‘there was no there, there’ to Trump/Russia. That was the opinion of the person in charge of the investigation and not a blogger at Breitbart.

Sounds a bit like the Russian investigation was a pretext to get an SP who could get busy looking for something/anything Trump might be guilty of. Sure enough, once it became apparent Mullet wasn’t getting anywhere with Trump/Russia what did Rosenstein do?

He expanded Mullet’s mandate. If that’s not a Witch Hunt, it certainly shares some attributes with one.
 
Trump even started a committee/task force to bring them millions of illegal voters to justice. I don't think they nabbed anyone.
Mott the Hoople said:
I’m sorry Tom but that’s been researched and documented every which way to Sunday. Voter fraud in our country is a statistically insignificant problem in this country.
Click to expand...
 
The pathetic defenses of Trump's PR tweets over the past day really reinforces the OP.

Trump supporters need to raise the bar. This is a world leader we're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top