The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

It'd be best if you didn't quote him lying his pants off: "Trump's son said he'd love the help of the Russians"
Actual report said: "as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

Have fun with liars like Schiff in the 2020 election!

I love it!

Can you actually quote the relevant part of the article? I don't want to bother getting around the NYT firewall.

The lack of concern by the Democrats about their leaders being wrong about Russian Collusion, about Schiff continuing to lie, even after the report came about, that's what strikes me as bizarre.

Why would it strike you as bizaare when you obviously subscribe to the theory that Democrats are determined to "get" Trump.and remove him by any means?

Plus overlooking the numerous crimes and guilty pleas are akin to a cop pulling over a car for speeding, seeing a stash of narcotics in the back seat and just letting the driver off with a ticket.

Because of how the Democrats initially treated the claims of hysteria, and about how they reacted when no collusion was found by Mueller. Also, I haven't overlooked the guilty please - I pointed out that they were procedural in nature, or had to do with money laundering or identity theft.

Would you prefer cartel gun suppliers like Eric Holder?

About that allegation...

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

Some call it the “parade of ants”; others the “river of iron.” The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking within the U.S., so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF’s congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.

Quite simply, there’s a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

NRA bad! Holder good, since he insisted his fuck up wasn't intentional! Wow, this is becoming Kafkaesque.

[Fahran]

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

A distrust not rooted in any concrete observance because we lack overwhelming or even reasonably satisfactory evidence.

[Gormwood]

About that allegation...

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

NRA bad! Holder good, since he insisted his fuck up wasn't intentional! Wow, this is becoming Kafkaesque.

Ignoring how the article points out NRA influence in Arizona legislation made seizing guns cumbersome for federal agents and led to the Fast And Furious fiasco just so you can go "HOLDER BAD, RRR!" I see. Okay then.

[Shofercia]

Right there, your main point is about how it should be investigated. Naturally, a response to that will have investigation, rather than gloating, as the main point. Oh look, it does:

Yes.

That response is primarily pointing out that it's one thing to investigate it, and another to go on an impeachment hunt. The corollary to that merely states a fact of American Politics. That's why there are 29 words addressing the main point, and half as much merely stating what will happen. And here is the post that you were responding to:

How many ways can I possibly rephrase this I HAVE IDENTIFIED THE INVESTIGATIVE IMPEACHMENT HUNT AS YOUR MAIN POINT.

But you haven't done that when you completely ignored it, like you initially did when "paraphrasing" my post. In your paraphrase, you pretended that it was about gloating, and you even got that wrong. Sad Forsher, sad!

For Christ's sake I have repeatedly pointed out that what you have been calling referring to as gloating and what I have been calling gloating, raving and hysterical witch hunting are DIFFERENT things.

Oh, so your "gloating" is somehow different from actual gloating? Your "gloating" is somehow not gloating? Is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong Forsher, that you'd rather attempt to escape reality and use all caps?

And, yet, here we are... with you claiming that your gloating and my gloating are the same thing.

I'm pointing out that when you quoted me as saying "gloating" - you were quoting me as saying "gloating" - is that so hard to understand? Now you're saying that your "gloating" somehow includes something else, and that NSGers were supposed to remember all of this, because... Thing is Forsher, when you "paraphrase" me as saying "gloating" - NSGers interpret that as me saying "gloating" - a concept that nearly all of NSG understands, except, apparently, you.

And, yes, it is stupid to call two different things gloating but I've been doing it since the start and have already pointed the stupidity of this out. Not that, clearly, you've noticed.

Except you haven't. You've only started doing this after I called you out on it.

I'm not even sure where I said that gloating was stupid in the above cited quote, but if you're going to imagine things like Forsher does - why not go all the way?

That would be because, as far as that summary is concerned, you never wrote this:

That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

But in actual reality, not Forsher's reality, but actual reality, I actually did write that. You're fighting for your ability to just randomly make shit up, by pretending that "gloating" isn't actually "gloating" because you said so.

Why? Because your "corollary" is so trivial as to be completely and utterly irrelevant to the summary.

That's just like your opinion, dude. And it was an actual corollary, no need to write in it quotes, unless you're "paraphrasing" again, and are about to engage in a massive posting tirade about how, when you say "corollary" you really don't mean "corollary" but actually mean something entirely different, like you just did with the "gloating" term that was used. That's quite a bit of self-humiliation there Forsher, c'mon, stop it, you're better than that.

What you did do, however, is negatively evaluate the impeachment witch hunting... hence:

people were gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters) and that's stupid

So now that you've engaged in mental gymnastics turning "gloating" into "witch hunting" because you used italics or some such bullshit, as you'll no doubt claim next. And yet, you're still wrong, because the original point, whose implication I followed, stated that it was not merely stupid, but could cost Democrats a ton credibility, something that you've again neglected to mention. You see, Forsher, when you try engaging in mental gymnastics after saying something remarkably dumb, you're still wrong, no matter how much you twist and writhe. Claiming that it was merely dumb, takes away from the gravity of the situation.

Have you once stopped to ask yourself why the italicised exists?

Shocker.

Put it into this elaboration, for example:

The problem here is that I'm saying that "people [loosely, Democrats] were gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters)

Oh dear, it appears that Forsher cannot tell the difference between "gloating" and "witch hunting" again, I guess that's the result of his "creative" posting...

and that's stupid

Something that only you pretended was there, but let's continue since you're just going to keep pretending.

whereas in your post you're saying "because the Democrats were being stupid, there's going to be gloating by the other camp [loosely, Republicans]"

Except I didn't say that they were being stupid. The post that I agreed with, also part of the quote tree, stated:

they can walk back their claim, they can admit they lied or they can continue pushing a narrative that, at this point, goes in the same bin as 9/11 truthers

Mere stupidity is Hank Johnson asking if Guam will tip over and capsize, like your posts are capsizing in this thread. Going in the same bin as 9/11 truthers, that's not just merely stupid - that's a completely asinine degree of stupidity.

The sense doesn't change. And why is that?

It changes it in reality. It doesn't change it in your imagination Forsher. Just admit that you tried to put words in my mouth, got called out on it, and failed epically. Otherwise you'll be destroying your credibility, just like CNN, without actually seeing the irony of the situation.

Because the Democrats (CNN... whatever arbitrary label you want to use to represent everyone doing this) were gloating. "Ooh, boy, Donnie's in for it now. Mueller gonna lock him up. #DraintheSwamp".

The Democrats weren't gloat... oh, now you want us to use your definition of "gloating" which means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. Yeah, not going to do that.

Your problem here is that Democrats were putting the cart before the horse and assuming an investigation would return a desirable result about which gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters) can occur.

Yes, redefine gloating yet again - I'm sure at some point the Oxford English Dictionary will agree, and take the new definition of an online poster over their very own definition. What is mere OED compared to the might of NSG?

However, from what you've been saying it is clear that whatever you understand "impeachment hunt" to mean is completely equivalent to "the Democrats assumed that investigations into Trump would demonstrate wrongdoing on Trump's part".

Unlike you, the terms that I use can actually be found in the English Dictionary, and once again, you're minimizing the gravity of the situation. It's not just wrongdoing we're talking about, it's collusion.

And so, like a rational and honest poster,

I've never seen someone redefine the terms, whine about others preferring to use standard definitions instead, smiley spamming other posters, calling them liars, and so on, suddenly turn around and caliming that they're rational and honest posters; it's like someone looking down there and saying "no problem in that department, believe me" - those who don't have a problem, don't say that.

I treat the terms as having the same meaning:

Which is radically different from how it's defined by the dictionary.

(aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters). In return, though? Like every other time I say "tap" and you say "faucet" I get a reply where you insist we're talking about completely different things.

Tap and faucet are synonymous. Pounding one's chest and burning someone at stake, are not synonymous. Did you also make that bullshit comparison as a "rational and honest" poster?

It even applies when I explicitly point out that we're talking about different things. Now, suddenly, to you, we must be discussing the same things!

Amazingly enough, on a forum that has a lot of words, I prefer that people didn't randomly make up definitions for commonly used words, and then whine when their definitions were rejected from the community, like a nerd being rejected from a hard core basketball game.

i.e. Shof, my words aren't (this time) saying the same thing as yours

You were attributing those words to me. So by your own admission, you placed words into my mouth, which didn't mean the same words that I used.

i.e. when you say gloating you mean what I (Shof) said when I wrote gloating even though you've literally just written "the word you associate with the behaviour of the Republicans to describe the behaviour of the Democrats" to try and tell me that you cocked up and made a horribly confusing terminological choice.

So after you redefined "gloating" you went ahead and accused me of making a horribly confusing terminological choice? Damn, that's some incredible projection right there.

Have you, once, stopped to answer these kinds of questions? Why is Forsher saying we're talking about different things?

Oddly enough, I don't really care about what you think. I see a commonly used word, and attribute the common usage of that word to it.

Why is Forsher writing gloating (aka raving aka being hysterical witch hunters)?

Why can't Forsher just use words to say what they mean? Why does Forsher have to debate in his own unique way, and then complain about how that's treated?

Either you have and came to completely stupid answers like "Forsher's lying" or you haven't bothered. Either way, that's the problem with how you've approached... probably every conversation we've ever had... but certainly this one here.

If you don't like how I approach your conversation, feel free to add me to your foe list. I'm not going to bother changing for you, since I don't respect you. It's just that simple.

Really, it amuses me to keep reading posts that work like this:

>I was saying this and you completely misrepresented it
*quotes Forsher saying exactly what Shof describes himself as saying*

But I haven't got the time for this. You're blocked, Shof. Goodbye forever.

Actual quote:

You can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

Forsher's "creative interpretation" of my quote:

people were gloating and that's stupid

Except by "gloating" you didn't mean "gloating" and by "stupid" you didn't mean "stupid" - but you totally got the word "and" right, and I think that's a gold star, don't you?

[Shofercia]

NRA bad! Holder good, since he insisted his fuck up wasn't intentional! Wow, this is becoming Kafkaesque.

Ignoring how the article points out NRA influence in Arizona legislation made seizing guns cumbersome for federal agents and led to the Fast And Furious fiasco just so you can go "HOLDER BAD, RRR!" I see. Okay then.

"Seizing guns is cumbersome!"
"Awesome, let's give away guns to cartels, but say we don't mean it!"
"Rad bro, that'll totally legitimize us in the eyes of the Trump-Russian Collusion Crowd!"

[Gormwood]

Ignoring how the article points out NRA influence in Arizona legislation made seizing guns cumbersome for federal agents and led to the Fast And Furious fiasco just so you can go "HOLDER BAD, RRR!" I see. Okay then.

"Seizing guns is cumbersome!"
"Awesome, let's give away guns to cartels, but say we don't mean it!"
"Rad bro, that'll totally legitimize us in the eyes of the Trump-Russian Collusion Crowd!"

I provided a link to the article but since all you want to do is gloat and take potshots at Democrats there's no point in discussing with you further.

[Cannot think of a name]

I love it!

Can you actually quote the relevant part of the article? I don't want to bother getting around the NYT firewall.

It was widely reported. The sky is blue.

[Vassenor]

If you understood Trumps mannerisms you would see how he is bullshitting, he probably found the idea interesting, but hes clearly BSing.

that's like saying your brother is LITERALLY trying to murder you because he said he would "kill you" if you took his chips.

we all know hes kidding...

Just like he's kidding when he called the Justice Department officials who did their jobs investigating him traitors I suppose?

Or when his press secretary flat out says they should be executed?

[The Lone Alliance]

The lack of concern at the numerous financial and political crimes committed by Trump associates and staffers as well as Trump's likelihood of committing financial crimes merely because Trump's personal collusion could not conclusively be proven strikes me as bizaare.

Not really. That's all normal.

Those crimes are normal and expected in the US, I bet if you dug through half of congress you could get almost every single person in office right now for something along those lines.

It's wrong but it's "Expected" that sort of corruption is sadly "Normal".

I go by the theory that there's only three types of people who go into politics, the ideologues, the power mad, or the people who go into politics to use the corruption in politics to make lots of money and connections.

And yes they will complain when the OTHER SIDE does it but not when their side does it.

Using the position of power to enrich yourself like a greedy SOB = Illegal, immoral, but it's something that everyone in office does anyway.
Using rich people's money or the money of allies to obtain a position of power = How you're supposed to do it. (See Citizens' united)
Using foreign governments unfriendly with the US to obtain a position of power = Immoral, Illegal, and also outside the norm and against the usual American principles of political corruption.

Yes you're expected to be a greedy dick and yes you are expected to bribe and backstab your way to victory BUT YOU DO THE AMERICAN WAY!

Getting Russia to help is not the American way.

Yeah they could try to impeach Trump for being corrupt and in office but that opens them up to being given the same treatment.
And none of them really want to stop the corruption in politics cause that's how they make their money.*

*Not that I'd mind if they did, it'd do the country a lot of good if they followed through and investigated every person high up in the federal government to the level of Trump, including all of Congress. It likely would cost a fortune but the payoff would likely purge a lot of corruption from the US and from both political parties.

[Yusseria]

...who said he would personally do it? It would most likely be the Justice Department.

Excellent work again at strawmanning. Well done.

Oh please. Last time I checked Lindsay Graham is very much a real person and not a strawman.

Doesn't seem to say Trump would personally do it.

[Yusseria]

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

I didn't think Schiff could me more of a fraud. I was wrong.

[Fahran]

The lack of concern at the numerous financial and political crimes committed by Trump associates

The crimes committed by Trump's associates and allies were all procedural or financial. As far as we know, Trump hasn't committed any crimes that haven't been addressed through civil avenues. We thought we had some evidence of illegal activity regarding conspiracy allegations so we investigated those. Some other stuff may have come up as a result of sincere concerns or mud-raking, and we'll investigate those in time. Until we do, the presumption of innocence should stand - at least if we're talking about impeachment.

and staffers as well as Trump's likelihood of committing financial crimes merely because Trump's personal collusion could not conclusively be proven strikes me as bizaare.

Likelihood isn't really a good thing to latch onto at the moment. Technically, all politicians and bigwigs are likelier to commit financial crimes than average. We don't assassinate their character or indict them until we have evidence that this has occurred.

[Tobleste]

Regarding crimes, tax evasion seems likely, conflict of interest seems almost guaranteed (though afaik that's not criminal) and I'd be amazed if most of the sexual assault claims against him aren't true. Regarding immorality, the internet isn't big enough. For one, the fact that half his campaign was corrupt and his own family was willing to collude makes him a horrible choice to pick federal judges.
None of that would lead to anything criminal or lead to impeachment so I don't think he will be impeached though. It was never a possibility. Trump could confess to everything I just said and there still wouldn't be enough Republicans on board for impeachment to be possible.

The economy was strong before trump. FWIW, when it inevitably declines, it wouldn't be trumps fault either. The economy in the US goes up and down for far more reasons than the POTUS. I see no reason why he gets credit.

The deficit is increasing and the entire government is currently nihilistic, though I agree about the foreign wars. Clinton was overly aggressive but Trumps approach to Iran and North Korea is too.

I would seriously question the idea that anyone would consider voting for trump due to concerns about culture wars and vitriol. It's the equivalent of backing Korean unification under the rule of Kim Jong Un out of a belief in human rights.

If we wanted to be completely balanced we would mention that of course, in 2008, there was a pretty bad crash in markets, and some people are only just recently recovering from it. Now was the crash all Obama's fault? Of course not. But he ended-up getting saddled with trying to make a solution the same way Trump is saddled with helping the economy to recover. Has it been recovering? Yes. Will it always be up, up, up for the economy? Of course not.

I'd say the difference is that Obama didn't take office until 2009 when the recession was already underway. The best he could do was mitigate the consequences and hasten the recovery. Afaik, most economists agree he did that. Trump inherited a good economy and could have focused on reducing the debt, tackling poverty or improving healthcare. He's practically done the reverse. By electing trump, his voters wasted this oppurtunity.

[Gormwood]

If we wanted to be completely balanced we would mention that of course, in 2008, there was a pretty bad crash in markets, and some people are only just recently recovering from it. Now was the crash all Obama's fault? Of course not. But he ended-up getting saddled with trying to make a solution the same way Trump is saddled with helping the economy to recover. Has it been recovering? Yes. Will it always be up, up, up for the economy? Of course not.

I'd say the difference is that Obama didn't take office until 2009 when the recession was already underway. The best he could do was mitigate the consequences and hasten the recovery. Afaik, most economists agree he did that. Trump inherited a good economy and could have focused on reducing the debt, tackling poverty or improving healthcare. He's practically done the reverse. By electing trump, his voters wasted this oppurtunity.

People shouldn't act surprised when they elect a serial bankrupter that has a history of stiffing payment owed to the point of being on a blacklist for American banks to manage the economy.

And I wish it was a joke, people actually condemned Obama's supposed handling of Hurricane Katrina.

[Shofercia]

No it dosn't because you do not have proof of anything other than CNN talking points.

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

Ahh yes, Mr. Schiff. So, how bad would it be if there was a video of Republicans talking about obtaining dirt on the Democrats, with a foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Talking about coordinated efforts with foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Telling the foreign power representatives to show the details not just to the FBI, but to themselves as well? That'd be bad, wouldn't that? I think that could even be collusion. And how gullible would Republicans have to be to believe that the photos in question are those of Hillary in the nude?

Well, look no further folks, because Mr. Schiff did just that, just replace Democrats with Republicans. In an interview with two Russian pranksters, pretending to be foreign service agents of Ukraine, one Adam Schiff was offered dirt on Trump with compromising photos and a statement that said photos would never see the light of day, if Trump dropped sanctions on Russia. Despite the pranksters' attempts to limit the exposure to the FBI, Adam Schiff demanded that said images also be released to his committee. Very, very, very awkward.

Here'a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu6iaxX6fI
And here's the actual tape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5waop30577A&

With the exception of Ksenia Sobchak, an opposition activist who ran for president, the rest of the names are either singers or fictional, and the code phrases used, come from famed Russia and Soviet movies.

[Shofercia]

right

the thing is though, there is no COLLUSION which was the whole reason it was launched, thole reason MSM has been jerking off to it, and the whole reason we got to deal with nut bags on social media and tv screaming about Trump being some kind of manchurian candidate.

it's like that never happend and " OH no, it's all about the "crimes" he MUST have committed...yeah yeah...we can maybe try and get him on a technicality or something."

No, what wa said was there was there was not sufficient evidence for Trump to be "indited" for collusion, not that there was no collusion.

Considering the sheer expenditure, work hours, breadth, and other factors of the Mueller Probe, considering that he could not find enough evidence against Trump, I doubt that anyone will find actual evidence of collusion.

"Seizing guns is cumbersome!"
"Awesome, let's give away guns to cartels, but say we don't mean it!"
"Rad bro, that'll totally legitimize us in the eyes of the Trump-Russian Collusion Crowd!"

I provided a link to the article but since all you want to do is gloat and take potshots at Democrats there's no point in discussing with you further.

Your link talked about how mean the NRA was, and stated that Eric Holder didn't intentionally arm the cartels, but rather, it was due to his idiocy, and NRA was bad. That's not a rebuttal. Arming the cartels is bad, irrespective of whether you commit the crime intentionally or negligently.

Can you actually quote the relevant part of the article? I don't want to bother getting around the NYT firewall.

It was widely reported. The sky is blue.

Fair enough. But despite giving a passionate plea about it, Adam Schiff did something similar, when he asked for the evidence to be released not just to the FBI, but also to his committee. Did Mr. Schiff alert the FBI immediately? Not sure about that one. Also stating "the sky is blue" when all you're asked is to provide a non-pay wall source makes you look truly petty, CTOAN, since I wasn't claiming that the reporting was bad - I was asking for a source that I can actually read.

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

I didn't think Schiff could me more of a fraud. I was wrong.

He's more of an idiot than a fraud. You'd be surprised how much of an idiot he can be, but at least he's smarter than Swallwell. I'm just waiting for him to start bitching that the Republicans are running against him, rather than on the issues, when most of his campaign was "Orange Man Bad" and similar bullshit.

[Yusseria]

Mr. Schiff, would you like to take this?

Ahh yes, Mr. Schiff. So, how bad would it be if there was a video of Republicans talking about obtaining dirt on the Democrats, with a foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Talking about coordinated efforts with foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Telling the foreign power representatives to show the details not just to the FBI, but to themselves as well? That'd be bad, wouldn't that? I think that could even be collusion. And how gullible would Republicans have to be to believe that the photos in question are those of Hillary in the nude?

Well, look no further folks, because Mr. Schiff did just that, just replace Democrats with Republicans. In an interview with two Russian pranksters, pretending to be foreign service agents of Ukraine, one Adam Schiff was offered dirt on Trump with compromising photos and a statement that said photos would never see the light of day, if Trump dropped sanctions on Russia. Despite the pranksters' attempts to limit the exposure to the FBI, Adam Schiff demanded that said images also be released to his committee. Very, very, very awkward.

Here'a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu6iaxX6fI
And here's the actual tape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5waop30577A&

With the exception of Ksenia Sobchak, an opposition activist who ran for president, the rest of the names are either singers or fictional, and the code phrases used, come from famed Russia and Soviet movies.

Huh. Notice how no one is talking about prosecuting him under the Logan Act like they did with Trump when he made that comment on TV about Russia finding Hillary's emails.

[Shofercia]

Ahh yes, Mr. Schiff. So, how bad would it be if there was a video of Republicans talking about obtaining dirt on the Democrats, with a foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Talking about coordinated efforts with foreign power representatives, who happened to be Russians? Telling the foreign power representatives to show the details not just to the FBI, but to themselves as well? That'd be bad, wouldn't that? I think that could even be collusion. And how gullible would Republicans have to be to believe that the photos in question are those of Hillary in the nude?

Well, look no further folks, because Mr. Schiff did just that, just replace Democrats with Republicans. In an interview with two Russian pranksters, pretending to be foreign service agents of Ukraine, one Adam Schiff was offered dirt on Trump with compromising photos and a statement that said photos would never see the light of day, if Trump dropped sanctions on Russia. Despite the pranksters' attempts to limit the exposure to the FBI, Adam Schiff demanded that said images also be released to his committee. Very, very, very awkward.

Here'a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu6iaxX6fI
And here's the actual tape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5waop30577A&

With the exception of Ksenia Sobchak, an opposition activist who ran for president, the rest of the names are either singers or fictional, and the code phrases used, come from famed Russia and Soviet movies.

Huh. Notice how no one is talking about prosecuting him under the Logan Act like they did with Trump when he made that comment on TV about Russia finding Hillary's emails.

He's head of the intelligence committee, do you really expect him to investigate himself? It's like the UN making Saudi Arabia the head of the Human Rights Committee - they be-heading it.

[Cannot think of a name]

It was widely reported. The sky is blue.

Fair enough. But despite giving a passionate plea about it, Adam Schiff did something similar, when he asked for the evidence to be released not just to the FBI, but also to his committee. Did Mr. Schiff alert the FBI immediately? Not sure about that one. Also stating "the sky is blue" when all you're asked is to provide a non-pay wall source makes you look truly petty, CTOAN, since I wasn't claiming that the reporting was bad - I was asking for a source that I can actually read.

Again...widely reported. If you needed to be caught up with the rest of the class that's a little frustrating. If you're not aware of the circumstances of the event, maybe lay out for a while instead of having us catch you up.

I didn't think Schiff could me more of a fraud. I was wrong.

He's more of an idiot than a fraud. You'd be surprised how much of an idiot he can be, but at least he's smarter than Swallwell. I'm just waiting for him to start bitching that the Republicans are running against him, rather than on the issues, when most of his campaign was "Orange Man Bad" and similar bullshit.

Hahahaahaaaa...really? Schiff's comment about the Trump scions and campaign team's behavior when approached with dirt on a political opponent was that they didn't contact the FBI (like Al Gore did in a completely similar situation during his campaign) and your 'gotcha' is a prank where he talks about getting the material to the FBI? Oh, and his oversight committee? And you cats think that's a 'gotcha'? Oh man...

[Gormwood]

I provided a link to the article but since all you want to do is gloat and take potshots at Democrats there's no point in discussing with you further.

Your link talked about how mean the NRA was, and stated that Eric Holder didn't intentionally arm the cartels, but rather, it was due to his idiocy, and NRA was bad. That's not a rebuttal. Arming the cartels is bad, irrespective of whether you commit the crime intentionally or negligently.

You were singing the Republicans' favorite talking point that Holder deliberately ordered the guns walked to the cartel suppliers. The Fortune article explains (with interviews of people who were in the operation) how the guns were not deliberately walked, but that ATF attempts to seize them were hobbled by Arizona law and an unwilling state DA, which ended up with the guns going to the cartels because they couldn't be stopped.

[Shofercia]

Fair enough. But despite giving a passionate plea about it, Adam Schiff did something similar, when he asked for the evidence to be released not just to the FBI, but also to his committee. Did Mr. Schiff alert the FBI immediately? Not sure about that one. Also stating "the sky is blue" when all you're asked is to provide a non-pay wall source makes you look truly petty, CTOAN, since I wasn't claiming that the reporting was bad - I was asking for a source that I can actually read.

Again...widely reported. If you needed to be caught up with the rest of the class that's a little frustrating. If you're not aware of the circumstances of the event, maybe lay out for a while instead of having us catch you up.

He's more of an idiot than a fraud. You'd be surprised how much of an idiot he can be, but at least he's smarter than Swallwell. I'm just waiting for him to start bitching that the Republicans are running against him, rather than on the issues, when most of his campaign was "Orange Man Bad" and similar bullshit.

Hahahaahaaaa...really? Schiff's comment about the Trump scions and campaign team's behavior when approached with dirt on a political opponent was that they didn't contact the FBI (like Al Gore did in a completely similar situation during his campaign) and your 'gotcha' is a prank where he talks about getting the material to the FBI? Oh, and his oversight committee? And you cats think that's a 'gotcha'? Oh man...

The pranksters were the ones talking about getting the material to the FBI, and Schiff said that he wanted his committee to have it too. Did he not trust the FBI to provide it to his committee? Wasn't he the one whining about Trump not trusting the FBI? I think that if Republicans adopt the tactic of running against Schiff somewhere South, let's say the Alabama Senate Race - it'd be fun to watch.

There's the Kavanaugh Scandal, the Smollet Scandal, Smollet not being prosecuted as Democrats complain about white privilege, falling news ratings for MSNBC and CNN, and you're all gung-ho about business as usual. Unless the Democrats nominate someone intelligent or the economy hits the shitter, your posts will be fun to watch in 2020, specifically early November of 2020.

[Cannot think of a name]

Again...widely reported. If you needed to be caught up with the rest of the class that's a little frustrating. If you're not aware of the circumstances of the event, maybe lay out for a while instead of having us catch you up.


Hahahaahaaaa...really? Schiff's comment about the Trump scions and campaign team's behavior when approached with dirt on a political opponent was that they didn't contact the FBI (like Al Gore did in a completely similar situation during his campaign) and your 'gotcha' is a prank where he talks about getting the material to the FBI? Oh, and his oversight committee? And you cats think that's a 'gotcha'? Oh man...

The pranksters were the ones talking about getting the material to the FBI, and Schiff said that he wanted his committee to have it too. Did he not trust the FBI to provide it to his committee? Wasn't he the one whining about Trump not trusting the FBI? I think that if Republicans adopt the tactic of running against Schiff somewhere South, let's say the Alabama Senate Race - it'd be fun to watch.

There's the Kavanaugh Scandal, the Smollet Scandal, Smollet not being prosecuted as Democrats complain about white privilege, falling news ratings for MSNBC and CNN, and you're all gung-ho about business as usual. Unless the Democrats nominate someone intelligent or the economy hits the shitter, your posts will be fun to watch in 2020, specifically early November of 2020.

Stretch Armstrong would be proud.

[Shofercia]

Your link talked about how mean the NRA was, and stated that Eric Holder didn't intentionally arm the cartels, but rather, it was due to his idiocy, and NRA was bad. That's not a rebuttal. Arming the cartels is bad, irrespective of whether you commit the crime intentionally or negligently.

You were singing the Republicans' favorite talking point that Holder deliberately ordered the guns walked to the cartel suppliers. The Fortune article explains (with interviews of people who were in the operation) how the guns were not deliberately walked, but that ATF attempts to seize them were hobbled by Arizona law and an unwilling state DA, which ended up with the guns going to the cartels because they couldn't be stopped.

I was talking about how Obama used executive privilege to protect Holder. Liberals used to be able to criticize themselves over this kind of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvLU7ob7mwA

What happened to you guys? Now it's just "must defend everything Obama did!" If Obama pardoned Smollet, you'd probably be defending that too.

Also, if you handed over guns to cartels, whether intentionally or not, you still put thousands of American Border Patrol agents at risk. But instead of taking responsibility what do you do? Blame the NRA.

[Shofercia]

The pranksters were the ones talking about getting the material to the FBI, and Schiff said that he wanted his committee to have it too. Did he not trust the FBI to provide it to his committee? Wasn't he the one whining about Trump not trusting the FBI? I think that if Republicans adopt the tactic of running against Schiff somewhere South, let's say the Alabama Senate Race - it'd be fun to watch.

There's the Kavanaugh Scandal, the Smollet Scandal, Smollet not being prosecuted as Democrats complain about white privilege, falling news ratings for MSNBC and CNN, and you're all gung-ho about business as usual. Unless the Democrats nominate someone intelligent or the economy hits the shitter, your posts will be fun to watch in 2020, specifically early November of 2020.

Stretch Armstrong would be proud.

Once again: why did Schiff demand that it'd be handed over to his committee and the FBI? Did he not trust the FBI to do the right thing?

[Cannot think of a name]

Stretch Armstrong would be proud.

Once again: why did Schiff demand that it'd be handed over to his committee and the FBI? Did he not trust the FBI to do the right thing?

"Demand"...

Quit trying to equate an oversight committee with a political campaign.