Donald Trump

[Jono8]

I know the answer and i really think you do too but you just cannot bring yourself to honestly say it.

Also, i know you think this sounds clever, but this makes no sense.

So please entertain me, what is the answer?

Are you trying to say the Democrats don't actually want more witnesses?!

 

[Trusty]

Well, even if spying did occur by law enforcement, it could be valid for a number of reasons.

That is before we even get into Obama actually ordering it himself!

What if there is valid reasons for Trump to investigate Biden and Burisma?

I get the feeling you havent read any of the articles properly, its well known Obama used surveillance well beyond the norm, or do you even not accept that?

All that says is he disagrees with some of it. Where does he say and show proof Obama ordered spying? Where is his report? And why do you believe Durham over the DoJ's IG? Specifically what proof is there that the IG is wrong and Durham is correct?

Your original claim was based on just Barr saying he thinks there was spying. A man who was caught misrepresenting another significant report.

John Durham is the investigator or the investigators, why wouldn't you accept what he has to say, as soon as the IG report came out, both Barr and Durham released statement saying that they disagreed that no spying occurred.

You honestly think the FBI and NSA are spying on people and Obama has no idea whats happening..

Considering he wiretapped Angela Merkal, did mass surveillance on a scale not seen before.

https://time.com/4565149/obama-trump-nsa-surveillance/

It's incredible you find it such a leap that Obama knew about spying on the Trump campaign.

 

[Trusty]

Oh you mean that investigation that is still open. His comments that were unprecedented because prosecutors are never meant to comment on open investigations. He has still shown zero evidence to support his comments. Until he does then perhaps it would be sensible to go with the IG report huh.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-trump.html

 

[doodah]

@Trusty so all you have is a statement. Which do you think sounds more convincing? A DoJ report by its IG, a department headed by Barr himself (though it was obviously done independently) or a statement?

American law enforcement and its spying apparatus is capable of many things but again - you haven't actually shown any proof.

 

[Jono8]

What if there is valid reasons for Trump to investigate Biden and Burisma?

Then he should have got the DOJ to do it and done it all through the correct channels. Getting his personal lawyer and a load of shady eastern European henchmen to do it is rather odd don't you think?

I get the feeling you havent read any of the articles properly, its well known Obama used surveillance well beyond the norm, or do you even not accept that?

The FBI using surveillance a lot during the Obama administration does not prove he ordered any surveillance of the Trump campaign, or that he did it for his own personal or political reasons.

You do realise how absolutely insane the whole conspiracy is right? You do realise the FBI reopened , publicly , an investigation into Clinton, and not Trump , right before the election? If it was the Obama admin and FBI's plan to stop Trump getting elected they really did a **** poor job of it with that one!!

 

[Trusty]

@Trusty so all you have is a statement. Which do you think sounds more convincing? A DoJ report by its IG, a department headed by Barr himself (though it was obviously done independently) or a statement?

Durham has wider scope than the IG.
The IG report only dealt with situations within the US.
Durham is worldwide, he's being working in the background for a long time.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...igating-the-months-before-mueller-appointment

 

[Trusty]

Then he should have got the DOJ to do it and done it all through the correct channels. Getting his personal lawyer and a load of shady eastern European henchmen to do it is rather odd don't you think?



The FBI using surveillance a lot during the Obama administration does not prove he ordered any surveillance of the Trump campaign, or that he did it for his own personal or political reasons.

You do realise how absolutely insane the whole conspiracy is right? You do realise the FBI reopened , publicly , an investigation into Clinton, and not Trump , right before the election? If it was the Obama admin and FBI's plan to stop trump getting elected they really did a **** poor job of it with that one!!

She still won popular vote.

it's not a conspiracy, you are just putting your fingers in your ears. Whether Obama ordered it, or someone just down from him, it doesn't matter. Obama would have known it was happening..

You've literally just been shown article after article about Obama and spying yet you find it hard to believe that they spied on the Trump campaign.

I don't go in the Trump thread very often, but did i not see you saying that the US ambassador was going to be assassinated?

 

[Jono8]

She still won popular vote.

What does that have to do with anything, in relation to what we are discussing?

it's not a conspiracy, you are just putting your fingers in your ears. Whether Obama ordered it, or someone just down from him, it doesn't matter. Obama would have known it was happening..

You've literally just been shown article after article about Obama and spying yet you find it hard to believe that they spied on the Trump campaign.

None of which completely prove your assertion. Law enforcement during Obama's administration spying = / = Obama ordering the spying of a rival political campaign for political benefit.

I don't go in the Trump thread very often, but did i not see you saying that the US ambassador was going to be assassinated?

Parnas' texts certainly made it look like this is what was being plotted. Fortunately Parnas has since clarified that he thought the guy texting that stuff was drunk/not serious.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

What if there is valid reasons for Trump to investigate Biden and Burisma?

I get the feeling you havent read any of the articles properly, its well known Obama used surveillance well beyond the norm, or do you even not accept that?



John Durham is the investigator or the investigators, why wouldn't you accept what he has to say, as soon as the IG report came out, both Barr and Durham released statement saying that they disagreed that no spying occurred.

You honestly think the FBI and NSA are spying on people and Obama has no idea whats happening..

Considering he wiretapped Angela Merkal, did mass surveillance on a scale not seen before.

https://time.com/4565149/obama-trump-nsa-surveillance/

It's incredible you find it such a leap that Obama knew about spying on the Trump campaign.

You keep banging on about this spying but so far ZERO evidence has been presented to backup Barr of Durham's claim. In fact the independent IG report says the exact opposite.

 

[Trusty]

What does that have to do with anything?

You literally just said that the FBI investigation harmed Clintons chance of becoming President, it didn't. She won the popular vote still.

What does that have to do with anything, in relation to what we are discussing?



None of which completely prove your assertion. Law enforcement during Obama's administration spying = / = Obama ordering the spying of a rival political campaign for political benefit.



Parnas' texts certainly made it look like this is what was being plotted. Fortunately Parnas has since clarified that he thought the guy texting that stuff was drunk/not serious.

So its ok for you to peddle a conspiracy about the president attempting to assassinate an ambassador, but when i say Obama knew about spying, that's off limits.

Do you realise how stupid your views are of other people that don't think they way you think?

 

[Trusty]

You keep banging on about this spying but so far ZERO evidence has been presented to backup Barr of Durham's claim. In fact the independent IG report says the exact opposite.

Both Durham and Barr came out a few hours after the IG report and said they disagree with Horowitz's assertions that "no spying occurred"

Durham is the guy that makes sure investigators are doing the job correctly, the IG report was obviously not completely truthful.

Why is it that so difficult to understand?

Why wouldn't you listen to the top dog?

 

[doodah]

Durham has wider scope than the IG.
The IG report only dealt with situations within the US.
Durham is worldwide, he's being working in the background for a long time.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...igating-the-months-before-mueller-appointment

But the IG found no evidence of political bias, end of. Definitely problems with procedures and practices. You keep saying Barr and Durham disagree but they haven't provided proof or a report, why should we go on their word alone?

 

[Trusty]

But the IG found no evidence of political bias, end of. Definitely problems with procedures and practices.

Sigh.. literally. Its like talking to brick walls.

Do you know what John Durhams role is?

 

[Jono8]

You literally just said that the FBI investigation harmed Clintons chance of becoming President, it didn't. She won the popular vote still.

How does this even make sense in your head. Truly, very odd

So its ok for you to peddle a conspiracy about the president attempting to assassinate an ambassador, but when i say Obama knew about spying, that's off limits.

Do you realise how stupid your views are of other people that don't think they way you think?

I didn't peddle anything. I simply commented on what the texts said/showed. One individual, very much was texting about putting the ambassador under surveillance and potentially more. Fortunately (and i am happy, if true) that Parnas' was confident that the person sending those was drunk and not serious.

You see, unlike you, i am happy to change my view/perception based on new evidence.

 

[Trusty]

How does this even make sense in your head. Truly, very odd






I didn't peddle anything. I simply commented on what the texts said/showed. One individual, very much was texting about putting the ambassador under surveillance and potentially more. Fortunately (and i am happy, if true) that Parnas' was confident that the person sending those was drunk and not serious.

You see, unlike you, i am happy to change my view/perception based on new evidence.

So why talk about assassination if you had no proof?

 

[doodah]

Sigh.. literally. Its like talking to brick walls.

Do you know what John Durhams role is?

Do you know what proof is? His role is irrelevant without proof. You're literally asking for proof of something else in the post above....

 

[Jono8]

Do you know what proof is? His role is irrelevant without proof.

I think this is the issue.

"someone thinks/suspects" is concrete proof to some people in this thread.

 

[Trusty]

Do you know what proof is? His role is irrelevant without proof.

How is his role irrelevant? You do realise that when he releases a report, it supersedes the IG report, right?

 

[Trusty]

I think this is the issue.

"someone thinks/suspects" is concrete proof to some people in this thread.

Why did you talk about assassination?

 

[doodah]

How is his role irrelevant? You do realise that when he releases a report, it supersedes the IG report, right?

Say for instance he does and provides no proof to back up his original claim. What will your position be then?