ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3 of 17
< 123 456713 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Durham Arrest Watch - Tracking impending arrests in DOJ/FBI criminal investigation
Taco John 05:46 PM 12-15-2019
This interview seems like "required reading" at this point:


[Reply]
Donger 07:53 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Oh.



Do you refuse to take his statement this past week as confirmation of the NY Times reporting?
Durham's statement included that his inquiry was criminal?
[Reply]
Shields68 07:59 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Durham's statement included that his inquiry was criminal?
Do you really need confirmation? I mean really the IG found they altered/falsified evidence presented to the FISA Court. SOMEONE intentionally lied to the court.
[Reply]
Donger 08:05 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Do you really need confirmation? I mean really the IG found they altered/falsified evidence presented to the FISA Court. SOMEONE intentionally lied to the court.
It would be nice, yes. Wouldn't like to have it?
[Reply]
Shields68 08:26 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
It would be nice, yes. Wouldn't like to have it?
No. I think it would be inappropriate for them to deny or confirm the purpose of the investigation before indictments/report is made.

But really you do not think this is criminal: CIA to FBI-page is our asset his contacts with Russia are on our behalf.

FBI to court: Page is not a CIA asset. There is no reason he should have had those Russian contacts.

There is no way changing that email, knowing it is going to be used in court is not illegal.
[Reply]
Donger 08:27 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Shields68:
No. I think it would be inappropriate for them to deny or confirm the purpose of the investigation before indictments/report is made.

But really you do not think this is criminal: CIA to FBI-page is our asset his contacts with Russia are on our behalf.

FBI to court: Page is not a CIA asset. There is no reason he should have had those Russian contacts.

There is no way changing that email, knowing it is going to be used in court is not illegal.
Okay. I guess we disagree.

Do you think that Durham and Barr's statements were also inappropriate?
[Reply]
Shields68 08:30 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Okay. I guess we disagree.

Do you think that Durham and Barr's statements were also inappropriate?
I think they were very concise and were done to correct false statements in the media and vague statements taken out of context in the report. They had a duty not to let any potential jurors be corrupted by the press false reporting.

You saying the above is not illegal?
[Reply]
patteeu 08:31 AM 12-16-2019
Donger will be blindsided by criminal charges the same way he's been blindsided by the Nunes memo being validated at the expense of the fraudulent Schiff memo, finding out the dossier was bullshit, and learning but not accepting that Trump and his campaign weren't involved in collusion or obstruction.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 08:36 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Probably a side effect of your Faustian bargain.

:-)
You voted for Hillary, and you have the nerve to speak of Faustian bargains?
[Reply]
Donger 08:37 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Shields68:
I think they were very concise and were done to correct false statements in the media and vague statements taken out of context in the report. They had a duty not to let any potential jurors be corrupted by the press false reporting.

You saying the above is not illegal?
There weren't any false statements in the media. Not that I recall anyway. The report was released and the conclusions within it were reported.

Barr and Durham just didn't agree with those conclusions.

No, I don't think them doing what they did was illegal. I asked you if you thought it was inappropriate.
[Reply]
Donger 08:38 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Donger will be blindsided by criminal charges the same way he's been blindsided by the Nunes memo being validated at the expense of the fraudulent Schiff memo, finding out the dossier was bullshit, and learning but not accepting that Trump and his campaign weren't involved in collusion or obstruction.
Blindsided? No, I wouldn't be. Trumpers have been quite vocal that it's going to happen.
[Reply]
Donger 08:39 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
You voted for Hillary, and you have the nerve to speak of Faustian bargains?
I didn't vote for Clinton.
[Reply]
Shields68 08:44 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
There weren't any false statements in the media. Not that I recall anyway. The report was released and the conclusions within it were reported.

Barr and Durham just didn't agree with those conclusions.

No, I don't think them doing what they did was illegal. I asked you if you thought it was inappropriate.
Sure there was false statements. CNN and the left media were widely reporting that IG found no political bias. It is clear in IG's testimony he felt there was either gross negligence or political bias. The press was down playing that and given a large segment of the population the perception that it was minor mistakes and not done for political reasons. That seems to be what both Durham and Barr pushed back about.

I was asking you if the FBI guy who altered the evidence did anything illegal?
[Reply]
Shields68 08:44 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Blindsided? No, I wouldn't be. Trumpers have been quite vocal that it's going to happen.
Just like we were vocal when saying there was FISA abuse and you kept insisting that there was not?
[Reply]
Donger 08:47 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Sure there was false statements. CNN and the left media were widely reporting that IG found no political bias. It is clear in his testimony he felt there was either gross negligence or political bias. The press was down playing that and given a large segment of the population the perception that it was minor mistakes and not done for political reasons. That seems to be what both Durham and Barr pushed back about.

I was asking you if the FBI guy who altered the evidence did anything illegal?
IIRC, they reported that Horowitz found no political bias in the opening of the investigation. Which he didn't.

They both said that they didn't agree with his conclusions. So, I presume that they HAVE found evidence that the investigation was opened because if bias. They better, anyway.

The Clinesmith guy? Certainly improper. I don't know if it was/is illegal.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 08:47 AM 12-16-2019
Originally Posted by Cosmos:
Damn...thatís a SERIOUS case of projecting....

Dude wonít make it to Election Day without losing whatís left of his mind.
Should we bump the shoes dropping thread...:-)
[Reply]
Page 3 of 17
< 123 456713 > Last »
Up