Evidence Mounting that Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett Worked to Keep SPYGATE Hidden.

a reply to: introvert

I was not insulting you. I was pointing-out the traits you have exhibited.

wow
what a dumpster fire

a reply to: introvert

Is what I said true? When one runs out of facts to argue they resort to name calling. Pretty ineffective argument skills

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: introvert


Just saying that threads are often started before "all the facts" are known.

Sure. Honest OP's would not present the information in the manner you have and would have stated it was pure speculation. You have not. You are making statements you cannot prove and, in fact, may be incorrect.

You're free to put mine on your personal "ignore this poster!" list, cause I'm not stopping. Just getting started, in fact.

I know. Just like many others, you lack the integrity to be honest and will continue to push propaganda as truth.

It's sad that you choose to be a sheep.

You do realize that you just called the OP dishonest, of low integrity and a sheep. Do you really think that such name calling makes your point or looks mature? Shame!

When Introvert, and a few others, insults me, its a GOOD thing!

Typically when one resorts to emotion they have lost the intellectual argument.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Here, mister informed, eat this: Clapper admits informant identity is exposed

I knew the informant's identity before Clapper revealed it. He was a link between Russian academics and Papadapoulos. He is mentioned in Luke Harding's "Collusion," which I urge you to read before you get hopelessly lost in Trump's wilderness of mirrors.

If there was no informant, how was his identity exposed? Goodness, you guys are dense sometimes.

Where did I ever say there was no informant? I have spent the past page pointing out that the "informant" was not a spy planted in the campaign.The term of art is "mole." The FBI did not plant a mole in the campaign... but Russia did. Who do you think was paying Paul Manafort, and why did he lie to the FBI?

ETA: Please read the transcript of Clapper's statement. He explains that the informant was not "planted" in the campaign. He also does not name the informant... although his identity is well known.

a reply to: DJW001

I knew the informant's identity before Clapper revealed it.

Clapper didn't reveal it. It was revealed by the NYT and WaPo in an attempt frame nunes for leaking it.

He is mentioned in Luke Harding's "Collusion," which I urge you to read before you get hopelessly lost in Trump's wilderness of mirrors.

If it's going to make me make as much sense as you do, I'll pass.

Where did I ever say there was no informant?

Right here:

They were monitoring Russian communications. They did not plant a spy in the Trump campaign.

Ok, you're either an insane person or you're talking about a lot of things at once, assuming a knowledge base that doesn't exist. Before I write you off as the former, prove that it's the latter. Your last paragraph is three contradicting statements:
1: there was a spy/informant
2: It wasn't a spy/informant, it was a mole
3: there was no spy/informant/mole in the trump campaign, by the FBI

These three contentions cannot coexist how you have them. Explain fully.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Wait a hot minute, you weren't speculating when you said it wasn't gong to eclipse watergate???? You feel you have enough evidence to conclude that, yet no one has enough evidence to conclude placing a spy in the opposition parties' campaign was unethical and likely criminal??? LOL you must not know what watergate was and you certainly are ignoring a number of facts about the current case.

The two situations are not comparable.

I have no reason to believe this is even close to watergate and what you are doing is well beyond speculating. You are creating conspiracy, mixed with half-truths and out-of-context info.

Yes, but you took offense to it being bigger than watergate. DO NOT be dishonest.

Where did I say, or indicate, I was offended? Are you making things up now?

The FISA warrants based on the unverified dossier, the unmasking, the placing of a spy in the campaign, not approaching the campaign with the concerns of russian tricks, etc. There's a whole pile of evidence both physical and circumstantial that proves they were spying on the trump campaign. Being that they've caught no russians, it's really quite difficult to say they were spying on russia from within the trump campaign.

None of that has shown evidence that the campaign itself was the target of the spying.

Proof of intent is very difficult, however, in a court of law the standard of specific intent could be met by the stzrok-page text messages. They refer to a meeting with mccabe and an insurance policy. Sure, we could be wrong about the specifics, but the generalities have already been proven.

Proven what? The intent to do what?

You're right, I went soft at first, then I thought about it and realized there is actually a lot of proof, both of intent and of actions. The FBI either went rogue (doubtful, considering all of the other "rogue" agencies under obama) or was instructed to do what they did.

What, exactly, did they do?

We have an FBI, run by people who hate trump (by their own admission), illegally unmasking people, using fake evidence to obtain warrants, placing informants in the trump campaign, and an administration which used the IRS to target political opponents and illegally spied on congress. But you can't see how the head of this organization might have been the problem? Use that gray matter.

I only care about what can be proven. You have a long way to go to proving that, and that is why I would not even fathom comparing this to watergate, as others have.

What fallacy? A logical leap?

Appeal to the majority.

Oh my. Your desperation is showing. I never said the conclusions were set in stone fact. I specifically said they were speculation based on facts. Now do you see why we think you're delusional?

Did you not just post this:

We have an FBI, run by people who hate trump (by their own admission), illegally unmasking people, using fake evidence to obtain warrants, placing informants in the trump campaign, and an administration which used the IRS to target political opponents and illegally spied on congress. But you can't see how the head of this organization might have been the problem? Use that gray matter.

Not set in stone, huh?

I love how you guys take any word Donnie coins and just run with it. "spygate" now. Lap it up, do as you're told. Good boy.

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: introvert

Is what I said true? When one runs out of facts to argue they resort to name calling. Pretty ineffective argument skills

Call it what you like. I stand by what I said.

Nothing productive can come from a conversation with people in which their facts exist in a reality outside of the real world, they regurgitate sheepish conspiracy theories and conduct themselves in a dishonest manner. I do not apologize for pointing it out.

If that is name calling to you and it hurts your feelings, oh well. I don't care.

Funny to watch the libs squirm over semantics on a thread with only a couple of posting holdouts of all things that the Hillary campaign did conspired to illegally store and send classified material, willfully mislead a FISA court, and criminally use government intelligence departments/weapons to spy on a opposition candidate.

Makes you wonder who they are really trying to convince? It’s like if they stop posting the talking points, they may have to actually think? The illusion may break.

Nothing like the classic Bill Clinton “it depends on what the meaning of is is” .... If your defense is down to lawyer word games, your guilty.

What is this spygate thing? Is it like a Stargate without James spader and curt russell?

a reply to: introvert

You are who Daniel Boorstin was talking about when he said:

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.

I'm not going to continue to explain this to someone who obviously has a room temperature IQ, causing them to lack the ability to comprehend the simplest of explanations. I am a reasonable debater and find it to be a great way to learn new information, unless it's with people like you, who don't have any information to offer.

Nothing productive can come from a conversation with people in which their facts exist in a reality outside of the real world, they regurgitate sheepish conspiracy theories and conduct themselves in a dishonest manner.

In my years on this site, I've never once seen you have a productive conversation here. The common denominator is you. You are unwilling or unable to read and understand. I have had productive conversations and seen others have productive conversations/discussions/debates with just about every lefty on this site. You and silly are the only two that seem incapable of rational discussion.

That said I'll settle this discussion in a fashion you can comprehend: I'm right, you're wrong. I win, you lose. I'm smart, you're dumb. Game over.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: introvert

Is what I said true? When one runs out of facts to argue they resort to name calling. Pretty ineffective argument skills

Call it what you like. I stand by what I said.

Nothing productive can come from a conversation with people in which their facts exist in a reality outside of the real world, they regurgitate sheepish conspiracy theories and conduct themselves in a dishonest manner. I do not apologize for pointing it out.

If that is name calling to you and it hurts your feelings, oh well. I don't care.

Just calling it like I see it. And yes you resorted to what normal people refer to as name calling.

Didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings as far as I can see, just pointed out what a useless and juvenile argument you make.

Ps, definitely not saying that you are useless and juvenile just saying your actions exhibit those characteristics.

lol.

a reply to: DJW001

I like the war of biased media research vs biased media research?

He is mentioned in Luke Harding's "Collusion," which I urge you to read before you get hopelessly lost in Trump's wilderness of mirrors.

So, you cannot actually build a case with verified facts? You have to invoke an opinion piece by the media in passing to justify your position? While you try to ignore the equally dependable media research that shows no Trump collusion?

a reply to: carewemust

Trump made Spygate up.
It's make believe.
Even his own people are saying so.

I heard he told like twenty lies to the people at his rally in Nashville last night. That being one of them.
What do they call people who let someone constantly lie to them?
Suckers.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Hear, hear!

a reply to: Sillyolme

Say that three times each minute for one hour and it will become true, to you

If Luke Harding has the evidence of Trump collusion, I guess he will be called to testify any day now?

originally posted by: carewemust

Source, with the newly released evidence: thewashingtonreporter.com...

Wow. You are like the Babe Ruth of Fake News Sources.

Did you know the Washington Reporter used to be called "Offended America"?

Or that it's owner/editor in chief includes this in his bio?

"20 Year Old Financier and Political Commentator | Conservative, Trump Supporter, Zionist | Editor In Chief of The Washington Reporter."

Your sources are consistency known Fake News outlets.

THIS is the idiot that runs the Website you are using as a source:
talkingpointsmemo.com...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: DJW001

If there was no informant, how was his identity exposed? Goodness, you guys are dense sometimes.

Informant? I thought you said he was a "spy"? Which is it? What do you think the difference is?

Geez...talk about "dense".

a reply to: Dfairlite


And BY THE WAY:

President Donald Trump’s claim that the FBI embedded a spy in his campaign for political purposes began to crumble Wednesday after a prominent Republican, as well as defenders of the president, said he might have the story wrong.

In less than 24 hours, Trump’s allegations were publicly refuted by

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), one of just nine lawmakers briefed on highly classified details of the FBI’s operation;

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, a Trump favorite;

and prominent legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, a vocal Trump ally who has advised the president on legal strategy.

www.politico.com...