Donald Trump

Trusty · 23 Feb 2020 at 22:11

Jono8 said:
I didn't say he was corrupt.

So you accept what Durham said about the IG report as truth, that he didn't agree with the IG's conclusion on no political bias?

Trusty · 23 Feb 2020 at 22:13

Colonel_Klinck said:
You have ZERO idea if he has even found anything. You are basing all of this on one comment when the IG report came out.

Read my other posts, i've already stated i don't know how this ends. It's not CT to suggest that this might end in a different way to what you all think it will.

tang0 · 23 Feb 2020 at 23:13

Intelligence Official 'Misled' Lawmakers About Russia Helping Trump Win Re-election

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/brons...s-about-russia-helping-trump-win-ree-n2561762

Trump right again

OCUK TDS sufferers wrong again

tang0 right to be skeptical again

And you wonder why the media gets labelled fake news, full of fake leaks and intentionally misleading BS

chroniclard · 23 Feb 2020 at 23:20

Its been overstated is all, they still interfered. tang0 lying like daddy again.

plasmahal · 23 Feb 2020 at 23:21

No evidence of Russian 'play' to help Trump; briefer may have 'overstated' intelligence, official says

Contrary to numerous recent media reports, there is no evidence to suggest that Russia is making a specific "play" to boost President Trump's reelection bid, a U.S. intelligence official told Fox News on Sunday.

In addition, top U.S. election official Shelby Pierson, who briefed Congress on Russian election interference efforts, may have overstated intelligence regarding the issue when speaking to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month, the source added.

U.S. intelligence reportedly has assessed only that the Russians have been hoping to influence the election, and separately viewed Trump as a leader with whom they could work. Fox News is told Democrats pressed Pierson on whether Russia was trying to help Trump, and accurate context or perspective to her responses failed to emerge.

Intelligence agencies have made great strides in preventing Russian interference this year, Fox News also was told.

Republican lawmakers who were in the Pierson briefing noted that Trump has taken on Russia in numerous ways, one official present told The Associated Press. The White House has opposed Russia's major proposed pipeline in Germany, provided deadly arms to Ukraine and accused Russia of violating key arms treaties, among other measures.

tang0 · 23 Feb 2020 at 23:45

chroniclard said:
Its been overstated is all, they still interfered. tang0 lying like daddy again.

Oh look turned out they lied. Took 2 days for this post to age this brilliantly

Trusty · 23 Feb 2020 at 23:45

chroniclard said:
Its been overstated is all, they still interfered. tang0 lying like daddy again.

They've been doing for years i imagine, Russia the boogymen gets way too much airtime, it clearly didn't effect the outcome of the election, Clinton still won the popularity vote for example.

Jono8 · 24 Feb 2020 at 12:21

Trusty said:
So you accept what Durham said about the IG report as truth, that he didn't agree with the IG's conclusion on no political bias?

He didn't agree with "some" of the reports conclusions. We still don't know what he didn't agree with specifically or whether that even amounts to proving that the FBI started the Trump investigation because of political/biased motives.

Somehow we have gone from Barr and Durham not agreeing with some parts of the report to "omg that means they spied on Trump for political purposes and to take him down"

Again, the whole theory is just putting 2+2 together to make 5. Barr is very clever at muddying the waters to benefit the optics for Trump.

Colonel_Klinck · 24 Feb 2020 at 14:31

Trusty said:
They've been doing for years i imagine, Russia the boogymen gets way too much airtime, it clearly didn't effect the outcome of the election, Clinton still won the popularity vote for example.

No she didn't. Trump told us there was massive voter fraud of millions of votes that meant he actually won the popular vote..... Oh he was lying. There's a shock.

deuse · 24 Feb 2020 at 14:59

Why do people keep going on about the popular vote?

It means nothing....hear me......NOTHING if you haven't won the election.

doodah · 24 Feb 2020 at 15:39

Because it might highlight an issue with the EC if your opponent won 2.8m more votes than you and still got trounced.

Skunkworks · 24 Feb 2020 at 15:47

That's how the EC is supposed to work, it's not a bug.

Trusty · 24 Feb 2020 at 15:53

Jono8 said:
He didn't agree with "some" of the reports conclusions. We still don't know what he didn't agree with specifically or whether that even amounts to proving that the FBI started the Trump investigation because of political/biased motives.

Somehow we have gone from Barr and Durham not agreeing with some parts of the report to "omg that means they spied on Trump for political purposes and to take him down"

Again, the whole theory is just putting 2+2 together to make 5. Barr is very clever at muddying the waters to benefit the optics for Trump.

What?

Yes we do know which parts he didn't agree with, he told us. He didn't agree with the IG's assessment on how the FBI opened the case, ie political bias.
Go read Durhams statement about it all.

Squark · 24 Feb 2020 at 21:43

Skunkworks said:
That's how the EC is supposed to work, it's not a bug.

What's the point of having people vote then if it doesn't make a difference?
Surely the ec is supposed to reflect the public vote to a degree?

Jono8 · 24 Feb 2020 at 22:22

Trusty said:
What?

Yes we do know which parts he didn't agree with, he told us. He didn't agree with the IG's assessment on how the FBI opened the case, ie political bias.
Go read Durhams statement about it all.

As far as i am aware , this was Durham's statement:

"I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

A wishy washy empty statement made purely for the benefit of Barr and Trump to muddy the waters.

Let me know when they actually have evidence.

Trusty · 24 Feb 2020 at 22:28

Jono8 said:
As far as i am aware , this was Durham's statement:

"I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

A wishy washy empty statement made purely for the benefit of Barr and Trump to muddy the waters.

Let me know when they actually have evidence.

Ahh so Durham is not to be trusted now..got it.

It literally makes no sense for Durham to disagree with the IG report if he didn't have evidence to the contrary. Use logic.

plasmahal · 25 Feb 2020 at 00:14

Squark said:
What's the point of having people vote then if it doesn't make a difference?
Surely the ec is supposed to reflect the public vote to a degree?

It does. That's how all presidents have been democratically voted for since the EC's inception.

chroniclard · 25 Feb 2020 at 09:30

Is this the "genius" of Trump, waters are so muddy/corrupt that nobody knows the truth.

Jono8 · 25 Feb 2020 at 09:41

Trusty said:
Ahh so Durham is not to be trusted now..got it.

It literally makes no sense for Durham to disagree with the IG report if he didn't have evidence to the contrary. Use logic.

I dont know whether he is to be trusted or not.

He disagreed with some of it. What bits specifically? Do his findings mean he concludes that the investigation was started due to political bias?

He obviously agreed with some of the report as well. What bits specifically?

Did he disagree with the ultimate conclusion of Horowitz's report?

Who knows

Until we see them cite some actual evidence or specifics , their statements are meaningless and hard to draw any sort of conclusion from

Colonel_Klinck · 25 Feb 2020 at 18:34

I wonder if Trump has made inquires on whether Acosta can be "taken care of"? Its about time all the media organisations started calling out his constant lying for exactly what it is.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232311665192054785