Chairman Nunes Reveals Fusion GPS Connection to Obama White House…

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The entire Trump imvestigation is partisan tinged. #Resist isnt just a made up fabrication. When Trump elected i was not happy.

Then i saw the enormous conspiracy against him. It resulted in the investigation cum fishing expedition. The charter was to investigate actions which were not illegal and seem to be more applicable to Clinton (collusion with a foreign power).

I didnt and still don't like Trump. But the way he was treated was flat out seditious.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The entire Trump imvestigation is partisan tinged. #Resist isnt just a made up fabrication. When Trump elected i was not happy.

Of course. The Trump investigation is partisan tinged (never mind that it is headed up by a Republican or anything) but has produced many indictments and is constantly expanding in scope. Meanwhile the investigations into Democrats which have failed over and over to produce even a simple indictment are the ones that are on the up-and-up. Makes sense.

Then i saw the enormous conspiracy against him. It resulted in the investigation cum fishing expedition. The charter was to investigate actions which were not illegal and seem to be more applicable to Clinton (collusion with a foreign power).

I didnt and still don't like Trump. But the way he was treated was flat out seditious.

Conspiracy? *Eyeroll* Sounds like you read a bunch of confirmation bias and chose to believe things that suited your biases instead of actually based your opinion on facts and information.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lets be honest: if you go digging into any of the campaigns, you can find offenses to indict over. But if you look at what has occured thus far, you have Manafort for stuff happening years ago (and that the FBI already knew about), Flynn who "lied" about something that was not illegal, and a bunch of Russian nationals alleged to have hacked.

Im not saying to shut it down....but damn. Its not like you can really argue there's any real validity to any of what has transpired based on whats resulted.

I say "conspiracy" because I saw #Resist embraced in a bipartisan way. And then saw his campaign investigated as a result of it.

RE: democrats being investigated....have we not seen that the conclusion of those investigations was determined before anyone was even questioned? You cannot seriously point to democrat investigations going nowhere when they were in power and accused of rigging the justice system.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lets be honest: if you go digging into any of the campaigns, you can find offenses to indict over.

Um... I'm not going to back you up on that claim as I don't inherently believe that every politician is corrupt.

But if you look at what has occured thus far, you have Manafort for stuff happening years ago (and that the FBI already knew about), Flynn who "lied" about something that was not illegal, and a bunch of Russian nationals alleged to have hacked.

Flynn's lying was perjury... It was illegal regardless of what the content of the lies were. Also, the investigation is expanding to look into obstruction of justice. We may see some indictments in the near future for that too.

Im not saying to shut it down....but damn. Its not like you can really argue there's any real validity to any of what has transpired based on whats resulted.

Again. I'm not going to back that claim up as, apparently unlike you, I haven't jumped to any conclusions about the investigation. All I know is that the investigation keeps expanding and people keep getting indicted. So at the least there is smoke if not fire. I want to get to the bottom of this mess.

I say "conspiracy" because I saw #Resist embraced in a bipartisan way. And then saw his campaign investigated as a result of it.

Yet you don't call Nunes out for clearly trying to shield Trump from the investigation in a VERY partisan based way. He already had to recuse himself from the investigation for partisan stunts, then this memo bs makes it even worse.

RE: democrats being investigated....have we not seen that the conclusion of those investigations was determined before anyone was even questioned? You cannot seriously point to democrat investigations going nowhere when they were in power and accused of rigging the justice system.

See. This is why I get tired of these conversations. Y'all can never admit that your suspicions were wrong. If an investigation doesn't turn up anything, it's not because the claims were wrong. It's because of some other corruption standing in the way. You can never win with you guys. The goal posts appear to be located on the back of a pickup truck and you just drive them further away with each investigation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell you what: don't let the subject of the investigation have her former president husband meet with the head of the department of justice in a plain on a tarmac, and I won't think that the fix is in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No. We don't... All of this is HIGHLY unusual. Never before have I seen people so motivated to investigate an investigation while it is ongoing.

Yes, we do. Investigations are not conta-indicated because one group thinks there is nothing to investigate. They are there to establish facts and typically occur when there is disagreement as to whether or not claims are valid. If there were no disagreement on the facts of the case, there would be no need for an investigation.

This has nothing to do with Trump collusion with Russians, Mueller's defined investigation objective. This is more to do with Clinton's potential collusion with Russians using specious information gleaned during an election campaign for the express purpose of discrediting her opponent, and the use of said specious information to conduct domestic espionage against her opponent... a very serious charge. If there is any tie to the Mueller investigation, it is because the specified investigation objective was tied to only one potential conspirator. A proper investigation would cover anyone who attempted to commit the crimes being investigated, not ignore one potential criminal to focus attention on another.

Republicans LOVE frivolous investigations that waste time and produce no convictions.

Thus far, after over a year of investigation into Trump specifically, how many indictments, much less convictions, has Mueller provided? None, nada, zero, zilch against Trump. One serious indictment against Paul Manafort for money laundering, fraud, and concealing his position as a lobbyist for a foreign power, none of which have anything to do with Trump or his campaign.

And yet, we still hear how Trump colluded with Russia. And you claim the other side is the sole owner of frivolatry?

Nunes is a partisan Republican just like Trey Gowdy, so you are definitely talking about "Republicans". Claims are claims, but that doesn't mean that because a claim exists it needs to be investigated. Claims need to be credible first. These claims aren't credible. They are partisan tinged.

Yes, Nunes is a member of the Republican party, as is Gowdy. There is not a single official in Washington DC that is not a member of a political party! Does that mean all claims should be labeled as "partisan"?

Mueller is a Republican as well. So if we extend your premise...

Negative. There are claims and proclamations made in right wing media that make it APPEAR that this is the case, but it isn't true because she'd be in jail if they were.

False narrative: If one is guilty, one will be incarcerated. You completely ignore the possibility of corruption.

People like Kushner in the Trump admin LIED during their security clearance applications and they aren't in jail for their actions. That is a REAL crime, but I don't see you yelling for Kushner's head.

Probably because Kushner is already being heavily scrutinized. If he lied on his application through intent to fraudulently obtain a clearance, or even if he lied by gross negligence, I will indeed "call for his head"... that call being that he face any legal and normal charges commiserate with his actions and he be denied any present or future security clearance.

Incidentally, his interim clearance has already been suspended.

You seem to care about what Nunes thinks in lieu of facts.

I certainly do care that there has been an allegation made that appears to me to be credible. Absolutely. I do not believe that we need to immediately round up Hillary Clinton and throw her in jail, nor Comey, nor Lynch, not even Obama. I am saying they need to be fairly investigated... that is different than convicted. Neither of us know the facts yet; that is what an investigation is for.

Unless, as you seem to think, an investigation into their activities would equate to a guaranteed conviction. That appears to be where you are arguing from.

TheRedneck

Like it or not, the investigation is getting closer to President Obama.

insider.foxnews.com...

If this was happening to president trump, it would be wall to wall coverage 24 hours a day by the anti America news media.

On the flip side of the coin, the house intelligence committee has wrapped up its investigation into Trump Russia collusion. Expect a final report any day now.

thehill.com...

Its all better now for bumbble, stumbbly, Trump.
Now he can bring his porn stars to the white house to celebrate. I'm sure Fox news would find a way to justify it.
Perhaps he could invite our new president "Putin".

a reply to: hoss53

Perhaps he could invite our new president "Putin".

Well, there went your credibility.

TheRedneck

a reply to: xuenchen

How long before we have enough to lock him up, along with her, I wonder? Can't happen soon enough for me! It's a safe bet, though, that anything she did wrong, while SoS, he approved.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is founded, and well substantiated. Mostly it should be obvious. Post modern emasculation isn't going to work, btw. Liberals, true leftists, are populist not the twitty little de-manned outraged idiotic fem-fatal wantabes. Your fingers obviously still work. Search out the opposite opinion and have 2 competing thoughts at the same time, and reconcile.

a reply to: moyeti

That was a lot of words and no studies. Also, I'm not going to do your job for you and research your dumb opinion. You are the one who claims to use logic. Well logic starts with your opinion being well researched. So until you do the bare minimum I'm just going to keep laughing at you for childishly insulting liberals while pretending to take the high ground of being logical.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell you what: don't let the subject of the investigation have her former president husband meet with the head of the department of justice in a plain on a tarmac, and I won't think that the fix is in.

Mistakes may have been made, but that doesn't make them illegal or that there is a conspiracy. I don't see you jumping to the conclusion that Trump jr's meeting with the Russian lady was collusion, but you don't give the benefit of the doubt to Clinton. I see double standards with you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You trot out some off topic whataboutism to erect a strawman as an ad hom?

You scored the very rare logical fallacy hat trick in one sentence. Heres your medal

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I should add....the Russian is not our attorney general. I have to standing in regard to such concern.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes, we do. Investigations are not conta-indicated because one group thinks there is nothing to investigate. They are there to establish facts and typically occur when there is disagreement as to whether or not claims are valid. If there were no disagreement on the facts of the case, there would be no need for an investigation.

Really? You don't say? Because here I've been sitting here listening to conservatives tell me there is nothing to investigate against Trump for months now. Where is your indignation towards that? Oh wait, you probably agree with that opinion.

This has nothing to do with Trump collusion with Russians, Mueller's defined investigation objective. This is more to do with Clinton's potential collusion with Russians using specious information gleaned during an election campaign for the express purpose of discrediting her opponent, and the use of said specious information to conduct domestic espionage against her opponent... a very serious charge. If there is any tie to the Mueller investigation, it is because the specified investigation objective was tied to only one potential conspirator. A proper investigation would cover anyone who attempted to commit the crimes being investigated, not ignore one potential criminal to focus attention on another.

You just sound bitter that Trump is the focus and not Clinton.

Thus far, after over a year of investigation into Trump specifically, how many indictments, much less convictions, has Mueller provided? None, nada, zero, zilch against Trump. One serious indictment against Paul Manafort for money laundering, fraud, and concealing his position as a lobbyist for a foreign power, none of which have anything to do with Trump or his campaign.

And yet, we still hear how Trump colluded with Russia. And you claim the other side is the sole owner of frivolatry?

Oh here we go. You are employing the, "Nothing to investigate here so the investigation should be ended" argument. The very argument you just told me I couldn't employ against Clinton. I REALLY love the unashamed hypocrisy you are displaying.

The Trump investigation hasn't ended. Plus, don't be ignorant. You know DAMN well that the public isn't currently privy to all the info that has been investigated; especially while the investigation is ongoing. To sit there, with a straight face, and say that there is nothing there is just stupid.

Also, since I clearly have to point this out in EVERY thread on the matter, I have literally NEVER accused Trump of being guilty of anything. I have stated over and over that I am awaiting the results of the investigation to cast judgement.

Yes, Nunes is a member of the Republican party, as is Gowdy. There is not a single official in Washington DC that is not a member of a political party! Does that mean all claims should be labeled as "partisan"?

By contrast McCain, possibly due to his cancer diagnosis, isn't nearly as partisan as those two. Nunes and Gowdy are unashamedly party over country and to deny that just shows you have are being willfully ignorant.

Mueller is a Republican as well. So if we extend your premise...

Oh I see what you are doing. You willfully misunderstood my point to make it seem like I was saying that all Republicans are partisan. Lol. Nice try. I am calling Nunes and Gowdy partisan for VERY specific reasons and they have little to do with their political party.

False narrative: If one is guilty, one will be incarcerated. You completely ignore the possibility of corruption.

Negative. I haven't ignored that possibility. I just don't see the evidence it exists. I see a lot of claims of it existing from conservatives with sour grapes that Hillary isn't in jail, but I never see any hard evidence of it. So I don't believe the claim. Occam's Razor and all.

Probably because Kushner is already being heavily scrutinized. If he lied on his application through intent to fraudulently obtain a clearance, or even if he lied by gross negligence, I will indeed "call for his head"... that call being that he face any legal and normal charges commiserate with his actions and he be denied any present or future security clearance.

Incidentally, his interim clearance has already been suspended.

Any words about the months of him seeing classified intelligence while having this questionable security clearance? Surely you don't think that just because he had a temporary clearance at the time that it overrides the issues that later came to front that cause it to be revoked?

I certainly do care that there has been an allegation made that appears to me to be credible. Absolutely. I do not believe that we need to immediately round up Hillary Clinton and throw her in jail, nor Comey, nor Lynch, not even Obama. I am saying they need to be fairly investigated... that is different than convicted. Neither of us know the facts yet; that is what an investigation is for.

I disagree. I feel like they've been thoroughly investigated already, nothing came up, and you are just trying to fish for any small misdemeanor you can find to blow out of proportion.

Unless, as you seem to think, an investigation into their activities would equate to a guaranteed conviction. That appears to be where you are arguing from.

TheRedneck

I'm more of the kind that doing multiple investigations into the same thing that keep producing the same results (Benghazi, Uranium One, Obama collusion scandal, the deep state, etc) is a waste of time.

Give it up.

Nothing will convince Never Trump they've been on the wrong side of the law.

Everything thus far has been nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.

Nothing will convince them otherwise.

Clinton was 'cheated'.

Does this surprise anyone? Obummer is a thug from the streets of Chicago.....Always has been always will be. Hopefully it runs all the way up to his feet and we can extradite him from what ever # hole island he is hiding at.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? You don't say? Because here I've been sitting here listening to conservatives tell me there is nothing to investigate against Trump for months now. Where is your indignation towards that? Oh wait, you probably agree with that opinion.

I thought it was a waste of money. And it seems I may have been right. But I don't think I ever spoke out harshly against holding an investigation. Maybe you're confusing me with a Republican member?

You just sound bitter that Trump is the focus and not Clinton.

Fair = bitter. Got it, thanks. Can you point me to the dictionary I'm supposed to be using?

Oh here we go. You are employing the, "Nothing to investigate here so the investigation should be ended" argument.

No, I'm employing the, "No indictments from the investigation, so no reason to declare the subject is guilty" argument.

And the House investigation has ended. Sorry. I know you really, really wanted it to last through the remainder of his eight years, but it's over. It'll be OK, though.

The Senate investigation seemed to parallel the House investigation, so I expect the result of it to be similar... and I expect it to be over with soon as well. Mueller is still going too, but I am seeing indications he may be winding it down. I will admit it caught Manafort... that's a good thing in hindsight, but it was expensive.

By contrast McCain, possibly due to his cancer diagnosis, isn't nearly as partisan as those two.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I do love it when you interject humor into the conversation. Good show!

Oh I see what you are doing. You willfully misunderstood my point to make it seem like I was saying that all Republicans are partisan. Lol. Nice try. I am calling Nunes and Gowdy partisan for VERY specific reasons and they have little to do with their political party.

Really? I'd like to know what those reasons are.

Negative. I haven't ignored that possibility. I just don't see the evidence it exists. I see a lot of claims of it existing from conservatives with sour grapes that Hillary isn't in jail, but I never see any hard evidence of it. So I don't believe the claim.

Fair enough. I think there is a strong possibility of corruption; you do not. Let's investigate! Let the chips fall where they may.

Any words about the months of him seeing classified intelligence while having this questionable security clearance? Surely you don't think that just because he had a temporary clearance at the time that it overrides the issues that later came to front that cause it to be revoked?

So far I have seen nothing that actually disqualifies him from having a security clearance. What I have seen are errors in filling out the forms, which are quite complex and in-depth. These errors have led to the excessive time needed to approve his clearance, which led to him receiving an interim clearance. Interim clearances are not given if there is a suspected disqualification. Incidentally, he might still obtain a clearance; he just had his interim clearance revoked for political optics.

That said, if he misuses the information he has seen, I will indeed "call for his head."

I disagree. I feel like they've been thoroughly investigated already, nothing came up, and you are just trying to fish for any small misdemeanor you can find to blow out of proportion.

Obstruction of Justice is no small misdemeanor.

I listed the actual violations that are either known to be factual via investigation or have been admitted to publicly. Those are also not small misdemeanors. You are being disingenuous again.

I'm more of the kind that doing multiple investigations into the same thing that keep producing the same results (Benghazi, Uranium One, Obama collusion scandal, the deep state, etc) is a waste of time.

Those things you listed are not the same thing. The Obama collusion scandal has not yet been investigated, nor has Uranium One, nor has the "deep state" (although the FISA investigation, if it surfaces, would fall into that category). You seem to be confusing investigation with "CNN said it wasn't true."

TheRedneck

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not my job to pull up links for someone who knows the data is out there. Moreover, you are not the arbitrator of who has to do anything. If you want to feign ignorance, have at it. It is a free country, no thanks to people like you.