LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:43 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:21 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:58 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:56 pm
Nothing to see here, move along, focus on the bright shiny covid object over there.

Over 210,000 American citizens dead; and it is a joke to you...

It was not a joke, you know it, & it's dishonest of you to imply that it was.
It was in response to njbill saying this :
In any event, no one is going to pay any attention to this.
Trump being sick and in the hospital sucks all of the oxygen out of the room.

Sorry, you are correct.

Thanks. Even though we often disagree, I appreciate your honesty.

....& for MDLF76, it was not dismissive. It was in direct reply to bill accurately pointing out that covid has become the primary campaign issue that blocks out everything else. The only people still paying attention to the investigations are those like me who have been following them from the outset.

ok, but take it from most of us on here, that it sure came across as dismissive. That's certainly what "bright shiny object" means in nearly any such instance. "squirrel" being the same concept. "Nothing to see here, move along"..."squirrel"..."bright shiny object" offered up to distract. Not actually serious. Just shiny.

But no, you are not in a lonely group doggedly paying attention to these truly important issues instead of "shiny" ones like Covid. There's a whole bunch of Trumpist nut jobs trying to make as big a deal as they possibly can, rather desperately at this point. And the Russians love it.

But the rest of the populace is having none of it. They see it for what it is, this go round. And indeed, they really do have more important things with which to be concerned. And it ain't shiny.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:18 pm
Trump was colluding with the Russians.

which is that the Trump team is selectively leaking documents they think help them while continuing to conceal documents that hurt them.

What possible documents exist that Mueller, Comey and his FBI, the MSM and Schiffs/Nadlers committees didn't find with 2500 subpoenas 19 prosecutors and 4 fn years of investigations?

Mueller said Trump DID not collude.

SO What the heck are you talking about.

No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

and obstruction, an actual chargeable crime once Trump leaves office.

But I doubt any of this ultimately gets charged.

On the other hand, I suspect the 'follow the money' aspects are going to reveal all sorts of crimes that will be charged and proven. and they are very, very likely to also explain the pressure Trump and co have been under from Putin and other shady characters around the world.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

I have oodles of evidence of you molesting young boys just not enough to charge you.

Yes, I was focusing on the Russian collusion angle.

Mueller “found” that Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes, but couldn’t charge him because of the DOJ in-house legal opinion.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:40 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

and obstruction, an actual chargeable crime once Trump leaves office.

The spin is strong in you. Paraphrasing Senator Feinstein

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

I have oodles of evidence of you molesting young boys just not enough to charge you.

Are you in the 5th grade?

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

I have oodles of evidence of you molesting young boys just not enough to charge you.

We have criminal statutes against molestation, 6ft (which I presume you know?) but show us the criminal statute against collusion with the Russians. Don't you remember, "It's not illegal!" was the defense...

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:43 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

I have oodles of evidence of you molesting young boys just not enough to charge you.

Are you in the 5th grade?

Why would I interest you if I was.

See how that works

And when questioned UNDER OATH ALL WITNESSES testified exactly the opposite of what we were hearing in the press for 4 years.

Huh?

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:43 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:39 pm No, Mueller simply said he didn’t have enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime. He had oodles of evidence of collusion.

I have oodles of evidence of you molesting young boys just not enough to charge you.

Are you in the 5th grade?

Man that is harsh!!! Picking on 5th graders.

Trump is going to lose this battle in the fullness of time.

Sometime down the road, a lot more of the evidence of his collusion with the Russians will come out.

The judgment of history will be that he colluded with the Russians to try to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. And that the Russians helped him win the election (especially the email leaks).

It will never be possible to quantify exactly how many votes in which states he got because of the Russians, of course. But history will judge that the interference was a significant help to his election.

What he is doing right now, and this will include the Durham report, it is to try to leak out as much stuff as he can before he leaves office that (he thinks) shows the Russian interference was minimal and that Bad Man Obama was out to get him. In fact, history will judge that there was ample basis to investigate Trump.

Man you leave thread for a few hours and everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:56 pm Trump is going to lose this battle in the fullness of time.

Sometime down the road, a lot more of the evidence of his collusion with the Russians will come out.

The judgment of history will be that he colluded with the Russians to try to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. And that the Russians helped him win the election (especially the email leaks).

It will never be possible to quantify exactly how many votes in which states he got because of the Russians, of course. But history will judge that the interference was a significant help to his election.

What he is doing right now, and this will include the Durham report, it is to try to leak out as much stuff as he can before he leaves office that (he thinks) shows the Russian interference was minimal and that Bad Man Obama was out to get him. In fact, history will judge that there was ample basis to investigate Trump.

There were multiple times during President Barack Obama’s final year in office where he completely dismissed the idea that Russia was even capable of affecting the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, much less physically change the votes to “steal” it from one candidate or another.

As noted by The Daily Caller, Obama – in a separate context, criticizing Trump for allegedly questioning the integrity of U.S. elections – admitted that no amount of influence from Russia would or could affect an outcome.

“I’ve never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place. No serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:32 pm Obviously he is giving his own spin. As would anyone.

But nobody has suggested that there was anything wrong with what the report says Hillary was doing.

Trump was colluding with Russia. Why wouldn’t she put that out? In retrospect, she should have.

Remember, she did not approve the release of the Steele dossier. Bet she wishes she had.

IMO in the big scheme about this Russian thing there have been way too many folks on both sides trying to explain what really happened. It becomes more like beauty in the sense that who you believe is in the eye of the beholder. I may have read too much, at this point in the game I have no idea who is lying and where the truth lives.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:01 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:56 pm Trump is going to lose this battle in the fullness of time.

Sometime down the road, a lot more of the evidence of his collusion with the Russians will come out.

The judgment of history will be that he colluded with the Russians to try to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. And that the Russians helped him win the election (especially the email leaks).

It will never be possible to quantify exactly how many votes in which states he got because of the Russians, of course. But history will judge that the interference was a significant help to his election.

What he is doing right now, and this will include the Durham report, it is to try to leak out as much stuff as he can before he leaves office that (he thinks) shows the Russian interference was minimal and that Bad Man Obama was out to get him. In fact, history will judge that there was ample basis to investigate Trump.

There were multiple times during President Barack Obama’s final year in office where he completely dismissed the idea that Russia was even capable of affecting the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, much less physically change the votes to “steal” it from one candidate or another.

As noted by The Daily Caller, Obama – in a separate context, criticizing Trump for allegedly questioning the integrity of U.S. elections – admitted that no amount of influence from Russia would or could affect an outcome.

“I’ve never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place. No serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

As I said, you can’t quantify it, but it certainly had an effect. No one disputes that except Trump and his followers.

But two things are clear. The Russians helped and Trump welcomed the help.

The Daily Caller? You mean the same rag started by Tucker Carlson whose employer has taken the position IN COURT that Tucker is a liar and can’t be believed so he can’t defame anybody?

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:19 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:01 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:56 pm Trump is going to lose this battle in the fullness of time.

Sometime down the road, a lot more of the evidence of his collusion with the Russians will come out.

The judgment of history will be that he colluded with the Russians to try to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. And that the Russians helped him win the election (especially the email leaks).

It will never be possible to quantify exactly how many votes in which states he got because of the Russians, of course. But history will judge that the interference was a significant help to his election.

What he is doing right now, and this will include the Durham report, it is to try to leak out as much stuff as he can before he leaves office that (he thinks) shows the Russian interference was minimal and that Bad Man Obama was out to get him. In fact, history will judge that there was ample basis to investigate Trump.

There were multiple times during President Barack Obama’s final year in office where he completely dismissed the idea that Russia was even capable of affecting the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, much less physically change the votes to “steal” it from one candidate or another.

As noted by The Daily Caller, Obama – in a separate context, criticizing Trump for allegedly questioning the integrity of U.S. elections – admitted that no amount of influence from Russia would or could affect an outcome.

“I’ve never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place. No serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

As I said, you can’t quantify it, but it certainly had an effect. No one disputes that except Trump and his followers.

But two things are clear. The Russians helped and Trump welcomed the help.

The Daily Caller? You mean the same rag started by Tucker Carlson whose employer has taken the position IN COURT that Tucker is a liar and can’t be believed so he can’t defame anybody?

OBAMAS words. forget the vehicle. OBAMAS words right out of his mouth

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:36 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:19 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:01 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:56 pm Trump is going to lose this battle in the fullness of time.

Sometime down the road, a lot more of the evidence of his collusion with the Russians will come out.

The judgment of history will be that he colluded with the Russians to try to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. And that the Russians helped him win the election (especially the email leaks).

It will never be possible to quantify exactly how many votes in which states he got because of the Russians, of course. But history will judge that the interference was a significant help to his election.

What he is doing right now, and this will include the Durham report, it is to try to leak out as much stuff as he can before he leaves office that (he thinks) shows the Russian interference was minimal and that Bad Man Obama was out to get him. In fact, history will judge that there was ample basis to investigate Trump.

There were multiple times during President Barack Obama’s final year in office where he completely dismissed the idea that Russia was even capable of affecting the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, much less physically change the votes to “steal” it from one candidate or another.

As noted by The Daily Caller, Obama – in a separate context, criticizing Trump for allegedly questioning the integrity of U.S. elections – admitted that no amount of influence from Russia would or could affect an outcome.

“I’ve never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place. No serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”

As I said, you can’t quantify it, but it certainly had an effect. No one disputes that except Trump and his followers.

But two things are clear. The Russians helped and Trump welcomed the help.

The Daily Caller? You mean the same rag started by Tucker Carlson whose employer has taken the position IN COURT that Tucker is a liar and can’t be believed so he can’t defame anybody?

OBAMAS words. forget the vehicle. OBAMAS words right out of his mouth

"rig the election" as in widespread voter fraud, vote count tampering.

Influence voting patterns through disinformation is entirely another matter.

You're not really this dense, right? Just trolling?
That's what the Daily Caller is doing and you're repeating it, right?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:35 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:43 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:21 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:58 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:31 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:56 pm
Nothing to see here, move along, focus on the bright shiny covid object over there.

Over 210,000 American citizens dead; and it is a joke to you...

It was not a joke, you know it, & it's dishonest of you to imply that it was.
It was in response to njbill saying this :
In any event, no one is going to pay any attention to this.
Trump being sick and in the hospital sucks all of the oxygen out of the room.

Sorry, you are correct.

Thanks. Even though we often disagree, I appreciate your honesty.

....& for MDLF76, it was not dismissive. It was in direct reply to bill accurately pointing out that covid has become the primary campaign issue that blocks out everything else. The only people still paying attention to the investigations are those like me who have been following them from the outset.

ok, but take it from most of us on here, that it sure came across as dismissive. That's certainly what "bright shiny object" means in nearly any such instance. "squirrel" being the same concept. "Nothing to see here, move along"..."squirrel"..."bright shiny object" offered up to distract. Not actually serious. Just shiny.

But no, you are not in a lonely group doggedly paying attention to these truly important issues instead of "shiny" ones like Covid. There's a whole bunch of Trumpist nut jobs trying to make as big a deal as they possibly can, rather desperately at this point. And the Russians love it.

But the rest of the populace is having none of it. They see it for what it is, this go round. And indeed, they really do have more important things with which to be concerned. And it ain't shiny.

So the self-anointed oracle of this forum takes it upon himself to pass judgement on behalf of "most of us on here". Such insufferable arrogance.

This intell was deemed credible enough in July 2016 by the CIA for Director Brennan to personally brief Pres Obama, CoS McDonough, & NSA Susan Rice on the details, as well as asking FBI Director Comey & Counter Intel chief Strzok to investigate (which they declined).

Nonetheless, Candidate Clinton & her proxies proceeded to construct precisely the narrative which the intel indicated, in addition to paying for solicited Russian disinformation to inject it into the FBI's intel stream & feed to a compliant MSM, to support that concocted narrative. Just track the campaign statements about Trump-Russia by Candidate Clinton & other Dems. Thanks to a collaborative MSM, the narrative worked because Trump had business contacts with Russians which convinced him that the US (like the EU nations) could have a productive, pragmatic relationship with Russia, in the wake of the failed Obama-Clinton Reset attempt.