Discussion:
And The Democrats Strike Out Again - Flynn Cleared By FBI
(too old to reply)
First-Post
2017-06-20 02:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/

"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.

The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
David Hartung
2017-06-20 10:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.

The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that they
will not let the truth get in the way.
Mitchell Holman
2017-06-20 13:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?

Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-20 15:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
What are they investigating? NO crime has been accused by a credible
witness and no evidence has been produced. Unless you look at Democrats
that unmasked and leaked and leaks like Comey and deleting FBI files or
Hillary and deleting evidence and colluding to obstruct justice ON a
TARMAC in a DOJ plane.
--
That's Karma
PIBB
2017-06-20 20:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-
flynn-in-probe-linking -him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between
national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian
ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing,
it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of
routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They
did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
according to the Washington Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear
that they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
What are they investigating? NO crime has been accused by a
credible witness and no evidence has been produced.
So in that case, what's the problem?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Unless you
look at Democrats that unmasked and leaked and leaks like Comey
and deleting FBI files or Hillary and deleting evidence and
colluding to obstruct justice ON a TARMAC in a DOJ plane.
Moral equivalence, etc.
NoBody
2017-06-21 10:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-
flynn-in-probe-linking -him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between
national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian
ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing,
it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of
routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They
did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
according to the Washington Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear
that they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
What are they investigating? NO crime has been accused by a
credible witness and no evidence has been produced.
So in that case, what's the problem?
Ok, so how about you get investigated and have your reputation impuned
by endless "sources say" stories that never seem to be proven? You'd
be screaming like a stuck pig.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-21 14:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-
flynn-in-probe-linking -him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between
national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian
ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing,
it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of
routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They
did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
according to the Washington Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear
that they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
What are they investigating? NO crime has been accused by a
credible witness and no evidence has been produced.
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The Russians
hacking our election was a crime. There's not much we can do about that
because the people who did it are out of the country and cannot be
identified. Any Trump campaign people who helped the Russians to do it
are here and probably can be identified through identification. The FBI
and the special prosecutor obviously think they *do* have evidence of
Trump campaign people helping the Russians, and committing other crimes,
like meeting with Russian intelligence agents and then lying about it.
Those illicitly concealed contacts are a separate crime from aiding in
the hacking. It is *KNOWN* that important Trump campaign and
administration staff had illicit contacts with Russian intelligence
agents. *We* only know about it from unnamed sources, but the
investigators know about it from solid evidence. The existence of that
evidence is what has been told to us by unnamed sources. The sources -
who exist, without any doubt - have spoken accurately.
Post by PIBB
So in that case, what's the problem?
Ok, so how about you get investigated and have your reputation impuned [sic]
Wrong word and incorrectly spelled - because you're stupid.
by endless "sources say" stories that never seem to be proven?
They've been confirmed - every time. Most often they've been confirmed
by that idiot Trump.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-21 14:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The Russians
hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.

Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.

Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to manipulate
U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and remember that there was no
special prosecutor?
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-21 16:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The Russians
hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.

Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.

Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to manipulate
U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and remember that there was no
special prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.

Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be more
flexible after the election.



This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and Obama won
didn't he?
--
That's Karma
PIBB
2017-06-21 20:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE
NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to lift
those sanctions.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to
manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and remember
that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama colluded with
the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be
more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama proves
little.
NoBody
2017-06-22 08:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to lift
those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to
manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and remember
that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama colluded with
the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be
more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama proves
little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by funding
the opposition...
PIBB
2017-06-22 11:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to lift
those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to
manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be
more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
NoBody
2017-06-22 13:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to lift
those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to
manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be
more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
PIBB
2017-06-22 16:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more
FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
NoBody
2017-06-22 18:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more
FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards of
proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
PIBB
2017-06-22 21:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-22 22:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
PIBB
2017-06-22 22:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun
2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
NoBody
2017-06-23 10:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun
2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 14:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
The record speaks for itself. He's right: when I posted each of those
six L.A. Times editorials about how bad Trump is, in everything, you
lost your mind over each one. Now you cite the paper as an authority.
That's hypocrisy.
NoBody
2017-06-23 16:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:50:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
The record speaks for itself. He's right: when I posted each of those
six L.A. Times editorials about how bad Trump is, in everything, you
lost your mind over each one. Now you cite the paper as an authority.
That's hypocrisy.
All you have to do is post where I said one can't cite a major
publication. Let's go liar...post it right here:



Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 17:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:50:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
The record speaks for itself. He's right: when I posted each of those
six L.A. Times editorials about how bad Trump is, in everything, you
lost your mind over each one. Now you cite the paper as an authority.
That's hypocrisy.
All you have to do is post where I said one can't cite a major
publication.
By unavoidable implication, you stupid plodding unimaginative dullard,
when you call it "fake news". That's where.
NoBody
2017-06-23 21:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:08:04 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:50:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
The record speaks for itself. He's right: when I posted each of those
six L.A. Times editorials about how bad Trump is, in everything, you
lost your mind over each one. Now you cite the paper as an authority.
That's hypocrisy.
All you have to do is post where I said one can't cite a major
publication.
By unavoidable implication, you stupid plodding unimaginative dullard,
when you call it "fake news". That's where.
Show any message where I said that all stories put out by LA Times or
the Post were Fake News. I may have said specific stories were fake
news but I have not said what you claim. Of course, since you're just
a lazy, loser, and liar, you'll avoid the question again. In fact, I
command you to do so.

Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:08:04 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:50:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily
to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections
by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
The record speaks for itself. He's right: when I posted each of those
six L.A. Times editorials about how bad Trump is, in everything, you
lost your mind over each one. Now you cite the paper as an authority.
That's hypocrisy.
All you have to do is post where I said one can't cite a major
publication.
By unavoidable implication, you stupid plodding unimaginative dullard,
when you call it "fake news". That's where.
Show any message
You have been instructed in this: I don't play that game.
PIBB
2017-06-23 16:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration
heavily to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the
election and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence
elections by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-
foreign- elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible
sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
You were going to prove that Obama attempted to influence
elections by funding the opposition. See above.
NoBody
2017-06-23 21:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration
heavily to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the
IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois
Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he
can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the
election and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence
elections by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-
foreign- elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible
sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean,
the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them after
castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were to
Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly becomes
one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
You were going to prove that Obama attempted to influence
elections by funding the opposition. See above.
Cites provided. If you have nothing to refute them, just admit it and
we can move on.
PIBB
2017-06-23 21:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:59:54 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:07:23 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21
Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
The Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is
more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at
sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration
heavily to lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used
the IRS to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember
Lois Lerner and remember that there was no special
prosecutor? And Obama colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin
he can be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the
election and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about
Obama proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence
elections by funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-
foreign- elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible
sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was
about Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the
threads yourself.
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible
standards of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good
citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I
mean, the L.A. Times, really! - when he wants to use them
after castigating them all the rest of the time.
Yes that made me laugh. NoBody made endless posts about how
unreliable and unfair that series of LA Times editorials were
to Trump and then, when it suits him, the LA Times suddenly
becomes one of his most trusted and credible sources! lol
And yet you can't back up your claim...
You were going to prove that Obama attempted to influence
elections by funding the opposition. See above.
Cites provided. If you have nothing to refute them, just admit
it and we can move on.
Your citations are from sources which, based on your own
assertions, are not credible.
NoBody
2017-06-23 10:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well...but everyone already knows that.

Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 14:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well
No, I'm not. I described what you're doing accurately, you massive
flatulent hypocrite.
NoBody
2017-06-23 16:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:48 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well
No, I'm not. I described what you're doing accurately, you massive
flatulent hypocrite.
Amazing how you are always so wrong. I've never said you can't cite
mainstream sources. Go ahead and show where I've said that, liar.
Your selective comprehension is at full speed again...


Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 17:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:48 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well
No, I'm not. I described what you're doing accurately, you massive
flatulent hypocrite.
Amazing how you are always so wrong. I've never said you can't cite
mainstream sources.
I'm not wrong, you massive flatulent hypocrite. You call them "fake
news". By unavoidable implication, you liar, that means you are saying
they may not be cited as a reliable source.

You always trip yourself up. Stupid people do that a lot.

Once again: you are a dull, stupid, plodding reactor. You do not have
an articulable politics. Your entire political identity is simply
fighting against - that is, reacting - a sophomoric and entirely
inaccurate caricature of "liberals". You can't coherently define or
describe what they - the "bad guys" - believe, and since you are only
reacting impulsively and reflexively to that caricature, that means you
can't describe or define what you believe. In the end, it all comes
down to "nyah-nyah-nyah" and name-calling with you. You are less useful
than a bucket of lukewarm piss.
NoBody
2017-06-23 21:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:03:36 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:48 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more
FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well
No, I'm not. I described what you're doing accurately, you massive
flatulent hypocrite.
Amazing how you are always so wrong. I've never said you can't cite
mainstream sources.
I'm not wrong, you massive flatulent hypocrite. You call them "fake
news". By unavoidable implication, you liar, that means you are saying
they may not be cited as a reliable source.
All you have to do is show a message where I've said all reports are
fake news. You seem to have a major mental disturbance.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You always trip yourself up. Stupid people do that a lot.
Like you seem to keep doing.
Post by Preston Hamblin
Once again: you are a dull, stupid, plodding reactor. You do not have
an articulable politics. Your entire political identity is simply
fighting against - that is, reacting - a sophomoric and entirely
inaccurate caricature of "liberals". You can't coherently define or
describe what they - the "bad guys" - believe, and since you are only
reacting impulsively and reflexively to that caricature, that means you
can't describe or define what you believe. In the end, it all comes
down to "nyah-nyah-nyah" and name-calling with you. You are less useful
than a bucket of lukewarm piss.
You've described yourself perfectly!


Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:03:36 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:48 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:46 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more
FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Specifically, he can't cite mainstream media sources - I mean, the L.A.
Times, really! - when he wants to use them after castigating them all
the rest of the time.
And you're a liar as well
No, I'm not. I described what you're doing accurately, you massive
flatulent hypocrite.
Amazing how you are always so wrong. I've never said you can't cite
mainstream sources.
I'm not wrong, you massive flatulent hypocrite. You call them "fake
news". By unavoidable implication, you liar, that means you are saying
they may not be cited as a reliable source.
==================================================
==================================================
==================== WARNING! ====================
============ GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ==========
=================== WARNING! ====================
==================================================
==================================================
Post by NoBody
All you have to do is show a message where I've said *all* reports are
fake news.
Attempted goal post move *rejected*.
NoBody
2017-06-23 10:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
Translation: You can't back up what you claimed. Quite typical of
you. If you don't understand my position on the media by now, it's
because you haven't paid attention.
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Please provide credible sources. Thank you.
Oh aren't you just adorable whining about "impossible standards
of proof" when you won't accept perfectly good citations...
Please provide credible sources.
Since I'm not dealing with an intellectually honest person, I've done
quite enough. Your impossible standard of proof is so noted.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 14:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
You're a hypocrite.
NoBody
2017-06-23 16:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:05 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
I'm a lying hypocrite.
Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 17:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:05 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
You're a lying hypocrite.
I see no contesting of that. Looks like you're admitting it.
NoBody
2017-06-23 21:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:08:39 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:05 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
I'm a lying hypocrite.
I see no contesting of that. Looks like you're admitting it.
Why would contest that you're a lying hypocrite?

Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:08:39 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 07:48:05 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:27:14 +0100, PIBB
Post by PIBB
Please cite proof from a credible source.On Wed, 21 Jun 2017
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more
FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to
lift those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily
fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS
to manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and
remember that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama
colluded with the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can
be more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election
and Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama
proves little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by
funding the opposition...
Can cite the proof based a credible source.
I've already cited this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-
admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html
You have declared that those papers are not credible sources.
Really? Exactly when did I say this? Cite the message.
The LA Times discussionwas about their series of editiorals
castigating Trump. The Washington Times discussion was about
Trump's hotel getting foreign visitors. Dig out the threads
yourself.
You're a lying hypocrite.
I see no contesting of that. Looks like you're admitting it.
Why would contest that I'm a lying hypocrite?
You mean you don't contest it? Interesting.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-22 16:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Preston Hamblin
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment. The
Russians hacking our election was a crime.
And yet the evidence is secret and the punishment is more FAKE NEWS.
Russia is sitting in Crimea and laughing at sanctions.
Russia has been lobbying the Trump adminstration heavily to lift
those sanctions.
Sounds like you're forming another one of your daily fantasies.
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Obama did the same to elections in fact Obama used the IRS to
manipulate U.S. elections.... Remember Lois Lerner and remember
that there was no special prosecutor? And Obama colluded with
the Russians.
Obama on an open mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin he can be
more flexible after the election.
http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE
This is Obama asking Putin for help winning the election and
Obama won didn't he?
Attempts at moral equivalence with allegations about Obama proves
little.
Yeah, Obama actually *did* attempt to influence elections by funding
the opposition...
And using the IRS against the Republicans in the TEA PARTY.
--
That's Karma
NoBody
2017-06-22 08:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:24:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-
flynn-in-probe-linking -him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between
national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian
ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing,
it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of
routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They
did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
according to the Washington Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear
that they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
What are they investigating? NO crime has been accused by a
credible witness and no evidence has been produced.
Another profoundly and aggressively stupid comment.
You're replying to the wrong person again, stupid.

Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
SteveGG
2017-06-20 17:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-20 18:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of evidence
that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they have nothing
to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.

I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly - that
the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 20:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of evidence
that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they have nothing
to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly - that
the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Hillary Clinton" wrong.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-20 21:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of evidence
that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they have nothing
to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject
of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly -
that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 23:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of evidence
that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they have
nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the
subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly -
that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Hillary Clinton" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this:
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters, in Usenet
and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly
- that the Hiliary Clinton campaign and regime have a *lot* they
want to hide.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-20 23:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of
evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they
have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump
is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly -
that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time, little
Trumpling.
Just Wondering
2017-06-21 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of
evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they
have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that Trump
is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly -
that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time, little
Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump applies
to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an investigation of
Trump, there should be ten investigations of Hiliary.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-21 02:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of
evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they
have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted that
Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly -
that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time, little
Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But now you're a Trumpling - a blindly loyal, uncritical, unthinking
Trumpling.
Just Wondering
2017-06-21 09:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly
conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of
evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that
they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted
that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet and
elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it publicly
- that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time, little
Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But now you're a Trumpling - a blindly loyal, uncritical, unthinking
Trumpling.
If jumping to unwarranted conclusions was an Olympic event, you'd be a
medal winner.
SteveGG
2017-06-21 11:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, he's right.

A beautiful apt description :

blindly loyal, uncritical, unthinking Trumpling
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-21 14:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
No, he's right.
blindly loyal, uncritical, unthinking Trumpling
An innocent one?
--
That's Karma
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-21 14:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty of
evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that
they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel insulted
that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in Usenet
and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't admit it
publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have a *lot* they
want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time, little
Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But now you're a Trumpling - a blindly loyal, uncritical, unthinking
Trumpling.
If jumping to unwarranted conclusions
I haven't done that. You're a Trumpling. You tell us you are in every
post.
PIBB
2017-06-22 23:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly
conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started and then later maybe
someone will investigate Hillary if they're still worried.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 08:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly
conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax dollars are
you willing to flush down the toilet on such a snipe hunt?
PIBB
2017-06-23 09:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but
unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that they
simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of an
investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime
have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a snipe
hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from outside
intereference is worth a little time and money.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 09:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but
unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that they
simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of an
investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime
have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a snipe
hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from outside
intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
PIBB
2017-06-23 16:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that
they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they
can't admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and
regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be
an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......

(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government and
the Trump's campaign;

(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;

(3) any matters covered by www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-23 18:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that
they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they
can't admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and
regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be
an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government and
the Trump's campaign;
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta Lynch and
Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and said NO prosecution
but a new Prosecutor will have to determine for themselves if it was
legal for Comey to NOT prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the
Bill Clinton /Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.

When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's going to be a
red flag that there's something there and the fact it's while that ex
presidents wife is under investigation it become problematic with the
ethics and proof that some collusion taking place.

The only question is can it be prosecuted.
--
That's Karma
PIBB
2017-06-23 19:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and
that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the
subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters,
in Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if
they can't admit it publicly - that the Trump
campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first
time, little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should
be an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign;
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to determine
for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT prosecute
Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton /Loretta
Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's going
to be a red flag that there's something there and the fact it's
while that ex presidents wife is under investigation it become
problematic with the ethics and proof that some collusion taking
place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with the
mob, etc.

There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign;
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to determine
for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT prosecute
Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton /Loretta
Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's going
to be a red flag that there's something there and the fact it's
while that ex presidents wife is under investigation it become
problematic with the ethics and proof that some collusion taking
place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with the
mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
PIBB
2017-06-23 21:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
Translation: There is no evidence of any of it, none whatsoever.
PIBB
2017-06-23 22:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian
government and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that
may arise directly from the investigation; (3) any matters
covered by www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under
investigation it become problematic with the ethics and
proof that some collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating
with the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going
to take some time.
Translation: There is no evidence of any of it, none
whatsoever.
In that case, rest in peace at night.

Neither Donald nor Kushner does. :)
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 23:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian
government and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that
may arise directly from the investigation; (3) any matters
covered by www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under
investigation it become problematic with the ethics and
proof that some collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating
with the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going
to take some time.
Translation: There is no evidence of any of it, none
whatsoever.
In that case, rest in peace at night.
Neither Donald nor Kushner does. :)
Good point.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
"And [someone] runs away from"
"And [someone] has vanished"
"mommy's basement"
"irony"
"crickets.wav"
"translation:"
"in other words"

Stale, trite, unimaginative, stupid - typical.
Post by Just Wondering
There is no evidence of any of it, none whatsoever.
Sorry, but you're simply in no position to say that. Based on
information reported to the press by insiders, there is ample evidence.
The fact that you haven't seen it is meaningless.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
Mueller already has crates and crates of evidence. He hasn't shown any
of it to the public, nor has he even commented on it. It's there.
Just Wondering
2017-06-24 01:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
Mueller already has crates and crates of evidence. He hasn't shown any
of it to the public, nor has he even commented on it. It's there.
You know this because ... ?
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-24 01:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many
tax dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on
such a snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign; (2) any matters that may arise
directly from the investigation; (3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Then he will have no choice but to follow the Comey, Loretta
Lynch and Hillary/Bill Clinton collusion. Comey did it and
said NO prosecution but a new Prosecutor will have to
determine for themselves if it was legal for Comey to NOT
prosecute Hillary or if it was connected to the Bill Clinton
/Loretta Lynch collusion that it was NOT prosecuted.
When an ex President meets with the AG for any Reason it's
going to be a red flag that there's something there and the
fact it's while that ex presidents wife is under investigation
it become problematic with the ethics and proof that some
collusion taking place.
The only question is can it be prosecuted.
What about obstruction of justice, accepting Russian finance,
conflicts of interest, nepotism, tax evasion, associating with
the mob, etc.
There's lots of skeletons in Trump's closet.
Where is your actual evidence of any of that?
Robert Mueller is preparing the answer for you but it's going to
take some time.
Mueller already has crates and crates of evidence. He hasn't shown
any of it to the public, nor has he even commented on it. It's there.
You know this because ... ?
You know it, too. You just like playing dumb for some reason.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation - to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that
they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they
can't admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and
regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be
an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government and
the Trump's campaign;
Where is the evidence of any such link?
Post by PIBB
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Translation: You can't think of anything else.
PIBB
2017-06-23 21:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation - to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and
that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the
subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters,
in Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if
they can't admit it publicly - that the Trump
campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first
time, little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should
be an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign;
Where is the evidence of any such link?
Post by PIBB
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Translation: You can't think of anything else.
"Can't think of anything else?" What a dork. Surely you
recognize those 3 points are Rosenstein's terms of reference for
his special commission into Russian election interference.

Please don't now ask me who Rosenstein is.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation - to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and
that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the
subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters,
in Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if
they can't admit it publicly - that the Trump
campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first
time, little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should
be an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign;
Where is the evidence of any such link?
Post by PIBB
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Translation: You can't think of anything else.
"Can't think of anything else?" What a dork. Surely you
recognize those 3 points are Rosenstein's terms of reference for
his special commission into Russian election interference.
Please don't now ask me who Rosenstein is.
Translation: There is no evidence of any of it.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 23:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation - to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and
that they simply feel insulted that Trump is the
subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters,
in Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if
they can't admit it publicly - that the Trump
campaign and regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
It goes like this: The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary
Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first
time, little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should
be an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly? Based on what? How many tax
dollars are you willing to flush down the toilet on such a
snipe hunt?
I think the protection of future American elections from
outside intereference is worth a little time and money.
I repeat, investigate what, exactly?
Mueller intends to follow the facts wherever they lead him.
Rosenstein said to investigate......
(1) any links or coordination between the Russian government
and the Trump's campaign;
Where is the evidence of any such link?
Post by PIBB
(2) any matters that may arise directly from the investigation;
(3) any matters covered by
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4
Translation: You can't think of anything else.
"Can't think of anything else?" What a dork. Surely you
recognize those 3 points are Rosenstein's terms of reference for
his special commission into Russian election interference.
Please don't now ask me who Rosenstein is.
"And [someone] runs away from"
"And [someone] has vanished"
"mommy's basement"
"irony"
"crickets.wav"
"translation:"
"in other words"

Stale, trite, unimaginative, stupid - typical.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 14:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
* Trump's obstruction of justice

Those should keep the investigators occupied for a while.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
NoBody
2017-06-23 21:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:02:34 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
Both Preston and Pibb are long on fantasy claims but VERY short on
their ability to support them.
PIBB
2017-06-23 21:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an
investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so
viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will
correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is
plenty of evidence that they do. It is conceivable,
but unlikely, that they have nothing to hide, and that
they simply feel insulted that Trump is the subject of
an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they
can't admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and
regime have a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the
Trump applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be
an investigation of Trump, there should be ten
investigations of Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance
applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
You asked what to investigate and I told you. The investigations
will gather the evidence you now ask for. Patience, please.
Just Wondering
2017-06-23 21:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance
applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
You asked what to investigate and I told you. The investigations
will gather the evidence you now ask for. Patience, please.
"We must have an investigation, because there is no evidence."
Do you not recognize how insane that argument is?
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 23:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance
applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
You asked what to investigate and I told you. The investigations
will gather the evidence you now ask for. Patience, please.
"We must have an investigation, because there is no evidence."
Do you not recognize how insane that argument is?
That's not anyone's argument.

There is evidence. You don't get to see it yet.
Just Wondering
2017-06-24 01:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance
applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
You asked what to investigate and I told you. The investigations
will gather the evidence you now ask for. Patience, please.
"We must have an investigation, because there is no evidence."
Do you not recognize how insane that argument is?
That's not anyone's argument.
There is evidence. You don't get to see it yet.
Apparently nobody gets to see it yet. It must be like the Emperor's New
Clothes - you have to be a True Believer (or an incredible brown noser)
to see it.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-24 01:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by PIBB
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance
applications
Evidence, please.
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
You asked what to investigate and I told you. The investigations
will gather the evidence you now ask for. Patience, please.
"We must have an investigation, because there is no evidence."
Do you not recognize how insane that argument is?
That's not anyone's argument.
There is evidence. You don't get to see it yet.
Apparently nobody gets to see it yet.
Except the investigators.

Preston Hamblin
2017-06-23 22:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
That doesn't necessarily follow, although there is plenty
of evidence that they do. It is conceivable, but unlikely,
that they have nothing to hide, and that they simply feel
insulted that Trump is the subject of an investigation.
I think the blindly loyal diehard Trump supporters, in
Usenet and elsewhere, really do know - even if they can't
admit it publicly - that the Trump campaign and regime have
a *lot* they want to hide.
You spelled "Donald Trump" wrong.
No, I spelled it exactly right.
The blindly loyal diehard Hiliary Clinton supporters
No, that's not how it goes. I got it right the first time,
little Trumpling.
Actually, I voted for Independent candidate Evan McMullin.
But just about anything negative you might say about the Trump
applies to Hiliary ten times over. If there should be an
investigation of Trump, there should be ten investigations of
Hiliary.
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Ask the special prosecutor what evidence he has. What we know is that
he is investigating this issue.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, ple
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
Evidence,
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evide
See above.
Just Wondering
2017-06-24 01:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Ask the special prosecutor what evidence he has. What we know is that
he is investigating this issue.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
Evidence, please.
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
See above.
"See above" when as here "above" contains no evidence means you have no
evidence, none whatsoever.
I can just hear the next cry, "The fact there is no evidence just makes
it all the more important to investigate." Yes, there are people who
actually stupid enough to say that. In the real world the exact
opposite is true.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-24 01:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by Just Wondering
So let's get the Trump investigations started ...
And investigate what, exactly?
* All of the contacts of the campaign with Russian intelligence agents
Evidence, please.
Ask the special prosecutor what evidence he has. What we know is that
he is investigating this issue.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Kushner's financing from sanctioned Russian state-owned banks
Evidence, please.
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Flynn's and Kushner's lies on their security clearance applications
Evidence, please.
See above.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Preston Hamblin
* Trump's obstruction of justice
Evidence, please.
See above.
"See above" when as here "above" contains no evidence means you have no
evidence, none whatsoever.
There is evidence. You know this.
David Hartung
2017-06-20 21:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
Just how do you arrive at this conclusion? This far there appears to be
zero evidence to support the accusations against Trump.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-20 22:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Hartung
Post by SteveGG
Post by Mitchell Holman
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Why indeed ?! Anyone with half a brain, will correctly conclude, that
they have much to hide !
Just how do you arrive at this conclusion? This far there appears to be
zero evidence to support the accusations against Trump.
You have no basis for concluding there is "zero" evidence of wrongdoing
by Trump's campaign staff or even by Trump himself. You *don't know*
what evidence has been collected by the investigators. If they've been
investigating this long and have "zero" evidence, it seems reasonable to
think they'd have shut down the investigations and announced it.

You say the stupidest things so often.
SteveGG
2017-06-21 11:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well there's so much smoke, it's natural to speculate about fire !
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 20:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Please show where Trump has viciously objected to an investigation.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-20 21:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Please show where Trump has viciously objected to an investigation.
In his tweet, you fuckwit - the one where he called it a "witch hunt".
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 23:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Please show where Trump has viciously objected to an investigation.
In his tweet, you fuckwit - the one where he called it a "witch hunt".
That's merely descriptive - it IS a witch hunt. But that's not an
objection to the investigation itself. In fact, Coney's Senate
testimony was to the effect that Trump favored an investigation.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-20 23:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do Trump and his defenders object so viciously to
an independent investigation?
Please show where Trump has viciously objected to an investigation.
In his tweet, you fuckwit - the one where he called it a "witch hunt".
That's merely descriptive - it IS a witch hunt.
No, cocksucker, it's not a witch hunt. That's the attempt at deflection
by a shitty man with something to hide.
SteveGG
2017-06-20 21:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Please show where Trump has viciously objected to an investigation.
WHAT ? ARE YOU SERIOUS ?!

Comey was closing in on him, and wouldn't pledge fealty (like all
those fools at that praise-a-thon), so he fired Comey !

Contrary to even some of his own past comments, he absolutely does
have all kinds of ties to the Russians, many more of which will
subsequently be revealed.

His affinity toward things Russian, is oh so obvious and painful.
These are our arch enemies, and what he does is clearly treasonous.

Claims that everything is a witchunt. Yeah, right !
David Hartung
2017-06-21 22:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
In a rational world (which obviously does not describe the DNC)
reasonable cause is required to begin an investigation No such cause
exists. All we have is a baseless accusation, much like much of what you
post.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-21 23:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
In a rational world (which obviously does not describe the DNC)
reasonable cause is required to begin an investigation No such cause
exists.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. First of all, "reasonable cause" is not
required for investigation. That standard applies to things like search
and seizure or arrest. Where do you get that kind of bullshit? You
just make it up - that's where.

Secondly, there is *ample* evidence of numerous illicit contacts between
Trump campaign associates and Russian intelligence agents. Add to that
the known fact that Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian
ambassador in December.

Now add to that the fact that Trump obstructed justice in trying to shut
down the investigations.

There is *massive* evidence to have multiple investigations going on.
David Hartung
2017-06-21 23:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
In a rational world (which obviously does not describe the DNC)
reasonable cause is required to begin an investigation No such cause
exists.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. First of all, "reasonable cause" is not
required for investigation. That standard applies to things like search
and seizure or arrest. Where do you get that kind of bullshit? You
just make it up - that's where.
So any politically connected person can begin any investigation, just to
did up dirt?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Secondly, there is *ample* evidence of numerous illicit contacts between
Trump campaign associates and Russian intelligence agents.
Only in the minds of the irrational,
Post by Rudy Canoza
Add to that
the known fact that Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian
ambassador in December.
Was that against the law?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Now add to that the fact that Trump obstructed justice in trying to shut
down the investigations.
Again, in the minds of the irrational.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-21 23:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking
-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that
they will not let the truth get in the way.
Isn't than the whole point of having an investigation -
to uncover the truth?
In a rational world (which obviously does not describe the DNC)
reasonable cause is required to begin an investigation No such cause
exists.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. First of all, "reasonable cause" is not
required for investigation. That standard applies to things like
search and seizure or arrest. Where do you get that kind of
bullshit? You just make it up - that's where.
So any politically connected person can begin any investigation, just to
did up dirt?
non sequitur

All I said is that your bogus use of legalese is nonsense. There is a
legal term of art called reasonable cause, and it doesn't have the
ignorant layman's meaning you are implying.

There is, of course, *good reason* to think that there were illicit
contacts between Trump's campaign and Russians who hacked the election.
Post by David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
Secondly, there is *ample* evidence of numerous illicit contacts
between Trump campaign associates and Russian intelligence agents.
Only in the minds of the irrational,
No.
Post by David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
Add to that the known fact that Flynn discussed sanctions with the
Russian ambassador in December.
Was that against the law?
Possibly. It meant that naming him to be national security advisor to
the president when he was known to be a potential blackmail target was
an incredibly reckless and stupid thing for Trump to do, especially when
Trump knew that Flynn had lied to Pence about not having discussed
sanctions. Also, there is the fact that Flynn lied about how many, and
which, Russian officials he had met in completing his application for a
security clearance. He claimed not to have met any high ranking Russian
officials, and there is a published photo of him sitting right next to
Putin at a dinner in Moscow.

Now we see you in full-blown tell-any-lie mode trying to defend Trump.
Post by David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
Now add to that the fact that Trump obstructed justice in trying to
shut down the investigations.
Again, in the minds of the irrational.
No. In the minds of all clear-minded rational thinkers. Only an
irrationally blind loyalist and toady would think that Trump was not
trying to shut down the investigations.
Rudy Canoza
2017-06-20 16:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Hartung
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
Hmm.
The problem is that Trump's opponents have made it very clear that they
will not let the truth get in the way.
The New York Post story is not the truth, Pastor Gantry. It is a lie.
Here is a particularly egregious lie in it:

They did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
*according to the Washington Post*.

"according to the Washington Post" is an embedded link, and according to
normal and accepted web page conventions, clicking on it should take you
to the Washington Post story. It does not - it takes you to a bullshit
NYPost photographs and lurid headlines page. In fact, the NY Post
*lied* in saying "according to the Washington Post", because there is no
such story in the Washington Post.

The FBI did not "clear" Flynn of "illicit contacts" with the Russians,
because that's not what he was accused of having. He is accused -
accurately - with having *unreported* contact with the Russians, with
having lied about those contacts, and with having discussed sanctions in
the intercepted phone call. Every charge is accurate.

The NY Post is a gutter rag - not a legitimate newspaper at all.
Preston Hamblin
2017-06-20 16:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/
The subject line is a lie, and the story contains a lie and a false link
in the lie. The lie in the story reads:

They did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
*according to the Washington Post*.

"according to the Washington Post" is an embedded link, and according to
normal and accepted web page conventions clicking on it should take you
to the Washington Post story. It does not - it takes you to a bullshit
NYPost photographs and lurid headlines page.

The FBI did not "clear" Flynn of "illicit contacts" with the Russians,
because that's not what he was accused of having. He is accused -
accurately - with having *unreported* contact with the Russians, with
having lied about those contacts, and with having discussed sanctions in
the intercepted phone call. Every charge is accurate.

Don't post bullshit, you cocksucker.
NoBody
2017-06-21 10:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:44:03 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/
The subject line is a lie, and the story contains a lie and a false link
They did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia,
*according to the Washington Post*.
"according to the Washington Post" is an embedded link, and according to
normal and accepted web page conventions clicking on it should take you
to the Washington Post story. It does not - it takes you to a bullshit
NYPost photographs and lurid headlines page.
Since you can't click correctly, here is the direct link cited in the
story, stupid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.7c48ad1b024b

Here's "Preston" posting under his sockpuppet "Rudy". Dumb F forgot
to change his ID before posting.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/UD-DojE-OeU/3PXvbsqGBwAJ
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-20 17:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/amp/
"The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national
security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US
and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.
The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine
electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any
illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington
Post."
How interesting. Then why did the Cheeto fire him?
Matt
For what ever reason he wanted to fire him same as Comey....
It could be multiple reasons, Comey is showing he's stirring up problems
NOT solving them, that was reason enough to fire either one of them.
--
Or, you know, it could be because he's a Russian Mole.
Matt
And yet you have no evidence to prove or even accuse anyone but Comey
and Hillary of that.


They are the ones deleting Government data from computers and hiding
stuff and obstructing justice. The investigation needs to focus on the
people that have actually committed crimes and Comey/FBI says Hillary
comitted crimes. They just didn't prosecute her for them.

Comey is now linked to deleting government data and leaking and has
committed crimes and is linked to Clinton and Loretta Lynch who has
strange meeting in her DOJ jet and decided NOT to do her job because she
had ethically compromised her position as a prosecutor and then dumped
that onto Comey. The entire "ring around the roses" exercise was NOT
just strange but stinks of conspiracy.
--
That's Karma
Loading...