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

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: DJW001

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

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

Clapper and Brennan are both in hot water for lying to Congress about several things.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Speculation is allowed, like it or not.

Of course. I never said otherwise. But let's not confuse speculation with the absolute statements people are making.

In fact, your original reply where you said it was not going to elipse watergate, was just speculation on your part.

There is no reason to even suggest it was going to "elipse" watergate. Speculation based on evidence is one thing. Making absurd comparisons out of stupidity is another.

You just don't like that the fact pattern is leaning towards obama having been directly involved and him going down as the worst president in the history of the US.

What pattern? The pattern I see does not show Obama being the worst president in history. The pattern I see is idiots fabricating bull# and expecting people to buy it.

So instead of accepting the current leaning of the facts, you are holding out hope that some new fact will come to light to save your view point. That's why you're staunchly 'waiting for the facts' not out of some higher loyalty to facts.

See. Fabricating bull#. You just say things without any facts to support it.

That would also be hypocrisy.

Here's the thing, you and I can speculate on what we know and change our opinions when new facts come to light. We aren't a jury, all of the facts aren't there waiting to be presented the next day in court. So while we wait for them to come available over months and years, we are all going to speculate, including you. Drop the act and accept what we know and what we don't.

I made a specific distinction in my earlier post about speculation and such.

I'm not surprised you missed it.

Here's the thing. You and others are full of #.

Plain and simple.

People such as myself are not going to buy your line of bull#, especially when you try to sell that line as "speculation".

You do not get to pass-off your idiocy and delusions as speculation.

a reply to: introvert

What was watergate?

a reply to: carewemust

Yes, their lying about who the subject of the spying was, is small time compared to the other lies they've told, while under oath!

a reply to: carewemust

They got caught Spying on the senate in 2014 and tried to turn that all around then to. Feinstein was the one calling foul then.

www.theguardian.com...

So much for taking politicians talking points seriously ....

I'm sitting out the rest of these threads till we get some more meat on the bone (Some big news makers coming next week me hopes) Either way something doesn't smell right

a reply to: introvert

Of course. I never said otherwise. But let's not confuse speculation with the absolute statements people are making.

You said an honest person would have premised their post with the fact that it was speculation, yet you didn't do that when you responded that it would not eclipse watergate. Funny thing is, the OP inferred that it was speculation as they posed the rhetorical question: "It looks like Obama's Spygate scandal really is going to dwarf Watergate, doesn't it?" So the only dishonesty here, by your own standard, is yours.

There is no reason to even suggest it was going to "elipse" watergate. Speculation based on evidence is one thing. Making absurd comparisons out of stupidity is another.

Using the FBI to spy on an opposition party throughout their campaign is much larger than a break in to steal a few documents for opposition research. And as of now, we know that there was a spy in the campaign placed by the FBI. We're learning about the coverup now. The only speculation is that there is proof they were spying on the trump campaign. Once that is there, yes, it will be much bigger. That's the fact pattern and that's bigger than watergate.

What pattern? The pattern I see does not show Obama being the worst president in history. The pattern I see is idiots fabricating bull# and expecting people to buy it.

See above for the pattern. So you deny that they placed a spy in the trump campaign? Or do you deny that they wire tapped campaign officials? Or do you deny that they unmasked campaign officails? Or do you deny that they tried to cover it up?

See. Fabricating bull#. You just say things without any facts to support it.

That would also be hypocrisy.

No, my entire post is about speculating based on facts. I have laid out the facts above.

People such as myself are not going to buy your line of bull#, especially when you try to sell that line as "speculation".

No one is trying to get you to buy anything. If you can't see reality and make logical leaps (called speculation) that's on you. The rest of us can see where this is headed. It is you that came into this thread and started demanding we believe your version of reality, the one where we just have to wait and see and believe in the innocence of the obama admin until proven in a court of law that it wasn't as pure as the wind driven snow (that's hyperbole, in case you missed it).

You do not get to pass-off your idiocy and delusions as speculation.

It's only delusions if it's not based on facts. It is based on facts, ergo, not delusion. Now your insisting we not see the forest for the trees, that's delusion.

Wrong topic

OT

In the 70s, US media was totally invested in going after Nixon and exposing his crimes....today's media is totally invested in fabricating crimes against Trump while protecting Obama and Hillary to the death. Who is going to expose the Obama crimes and scandals? Not the media. Not the CIA, FBI or any part of the government. Not Facebook or Google. I think Obama, Jarrett, Hillary...they're all guilty, but so is our media/govt/big techs for protecting them.

Jarrett is a long time political animal. She has been slinking and slithering (are snake metaphors allowed?, she is a lawyer) around Chicago politics for quite some time:

• Left corporate law after the birth of her only child, Laura, to take a job in 1987 in the office of Chicago's first black mayor, Harold Washington. Unlike many of her colleagues, she chose to stay on when Richard Daley took over after Washington's sudden death.

• As Daley's chief of staff, she hired Michelle Obama (then Michelle Robinson) to work as assistant to the mayor — but not before re-assuring Michelle's fiancé, Barack Obama, that the job was right for her.

Valerie Jarrett - Time

I had to look up Harold Washington:

On November 25, 1987, at 11:00 am, Chicago Fire Department paramedics were called to City Hall. Washington's press secretary, Alton Miller, had been discussing school board issues with the mayor when Washington suddenly slumped over on his desk, falling unconscious. After failing to revive Washington in his office, paramedics rushed him to Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Further attempts to revive him failed, and Washington was pronounced dead at 1:36 pm

...

Immediately after Washington's death, rumors about how Washington died began to surface. On January 6, 1988, Dr. Antonio Senat, Washington's personal physician, denied "unfounded speculations" that Washington had coc aine in his system at the time of his death, or that foul play was involved. Cook County Medical Examiner Robert J. Stein performed an autopsy on Washington and concluded that Washington had died of a heart attack. Washington had weighed 284 pounds (129 kg), and suffered from hypertension, high cholesterol levels, and an enlarged heart.[51] On June 20, 1988, Alton Miller again indicated that drug reports on Washington had come back negative, and that Washington had not been poisoned prior to his death. Dr. Stein stated that the only drug in Washington's system had been lidocaine, which is used to stabilize the heart after a heart attack takes place. The drug was given to Washington either by paramedics or by doctors at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.[52] Bernard Epton, Washington's opponent in the 1983 general election, died 18 days later, on December 13, 1987.

Harold Washington - Wikipedia

Keep in mind that the CIA heart attack gun was disclosed in the 70's.

Looking a little more recently, we see Ms. Jarrett performing more covering actions for the Obama administration:

President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.

Valerie Jarrett Key Player in Fast and Furious Cover-Up After Holder Lied to Congress

Considering VJ has had a hand in keep Obama scandals out of the press in the past, is it difficult to imagine that she continued to perform that role?

a reply to: Dfairlite

You said an honest person would have premised their post with the fact that it was speculation, yet you didn't do that when you responded that it would not eclipse watergate.

I was not speculating. There is no reason to believe this is even coming close to Watergate proportions.

Funny thing is, the OP inferred that it was speculation as they posed the rhetorical question: "It looks like Obama's Spygate scandal really is going to dwarf Watergate, doesn't it?" So the only dishonesty here, by your own standard, is yours.

The OP said much more than that. DO not be dishonest.

Using the FBI to spy on an opposition party throughout their campaign is much larger than a break in to steal a few documents for opposition research.

Can you post proof of that? I've not seen anyone state there was evidence they were there to spy on the opposition party.

And as of now, we know that there was a spy in the campaign placed by the FBI.

For what purpose?

We're learning about the coverup now.

Not really. The "coverup" is nothing more than a conspiracy theory at this point.

The only speculation is that there is proof they were spying on the trump campaign. Once that is there, yes, it will be much bigger. That's the fact pattern and that's bigger than watergate.

Oh. So the proof itself is only speculation? Well, how can an honest person such as yourself make such absolute statements, yet turn around and admit the proof is not solid?

See above for the pattern.

Yes. The pattern is obvious. You are contradicting yourself and might be full of #.

So you deny that they placed a spy in the trump campaign? Or do you deny that they wire tapped campaign officials? Or do you deny that they unmasked campaign officails? Or do you deny that they tried to cover it up?

I do not deny that. What I cannot say for certain is that they were there to spy on the campaign itself or the opposition party. You have said that.

I wait for your proof.

No, my entire post is about speculating based on facts. I have laid out the facts above.

No. You have not. You have given me speculation based on conspiracy theory. You do not get to pass off your theories as fact.

No one is trying to get you to buy anything. If you can't see reality and make logical leaps (called speculation) that's on you. The rest of us can see where this is headed.

That's a logical fallacy. You do not make a very good case when you have to resort to such obvious fallacies.

It is you that came into this thread and started demanding we believe your version of reality, the one where we just have to wait and see and believe in the innocence of the obama admin until proven in a court of law that it wasn't as pure as the wind driven snow (that's hyperbole, in case you missed it).

I know. You made that up. I have not demanded any such thing.

It's only delusions if it's not based on facts. It is based on facts, ergo, not delusion. Now your insisting we not see the forest for the trees, that's delusion.

You've admitted you do not have the facts needed to come to any conclusion. And you wonder why I think you guys are delusional?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert
the one where we just have to wait and see and believe in the innocence of the obama admin until proven in a court of law that it wasn't as pure as the wind driven snow (that's hyperbole, in case you missed it).

Last I checked, that is how our justice system works. Innocent until proven guilty. Soooo... Yeah. Where's your proof?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Why are people so willing to take a bullet for these two?

I always said our government had been infiltrated with traitors, still not sure what their real agenda is though.

I wish they would end up in jail, but some flunky will take the fall.

I don't know if it is possible to get our country back, but I do believe Trump was chosen.

"I always said our government had been infiltrated with traitors, still not sure what their real agenda is though."

We are too dumb to know what is good for us. The US Constitution gets in the way of them controlling our lives, so they use every tactic they can to De-stabilize us to either change or try to drop the Constitution.

This is why "Q" has resonated so well, the military takes oaths to the constitution, and if "Q" is right, they are trying to save the republic from itself.

That, is their real agenda.

Fred..

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!

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!

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!

Is what I said true?

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!

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

You do appear to be dishonest, of low integrity and a sheep, as you are following narratives and agendas that have no basis in reality.

Proof of that can be found in the "Q" thread and in this OP.

a reply to: introvert

I was not speculating. There is no reason to believe this is even coming close to Watergate proportions.

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 OP said much more than that. DO not be dishonest.

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

Can you post proof of that? I've not seen anyone state there was evidence they were there to spy on the opposition party.

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.

Oh. So the proof itself is only speculation?

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.

Yes. The pattern is obvious. You are contradicting yourself and might be full of #.

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.

I do not deny that. What I cannot say for certain is that they were there to spy on the campaign itself or the opposition party. You have said that.

I wait for your proof.

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.

That's a logical fallacy. You do not make a very good case when you have to resort to such obvious fallacies.

What fallacy? A logical leap?

You've admitted you do not have the facts needed to come to any conclusion. And you wonder why I think you guys are delusional?

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?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

gph.is...

a reply to: whywhynot

All they've got left is ad-homs and obfuscation.

a reply to: introvert

You are exhibiting traits of a narcissist, a moron, a liar, a coward, a bot, and a flake. But don't worry, I'm not insulting you, simply describing how you appear.