Page 2 of 15 [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jun 2017, 11:17 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 1:00 am

Campin_Cat wrote:
EzraS wrote:
When Sessions and whoever else is being asked if they have communicated with Russians / the Russian government, does that mean simply meeting a Russian ambassador at a convention or some other Russian at a populated event where people brush shoulders, or are they asking about some secret meeting behind closed doors? I mean they're looking for collusion as in secret cooperation right? So how would two people happening to be at the same convention or similar be pertinent?

I feel that they are NOT asking if Sessions just merely "brushed shoulders" with someone at a convention, or something----and, that they ARE asking if he had any "secret / closed door" conversations with any Russian(s). I feel that that's why they're, ALSO, after Jared Kushner----because, IIRC, there was a report that he had a meeting with some Russian bank guy, at a hotel, or something.

Also, it is a tactic, sometimes, of people in authority to ask something in a round-about way----or, to ask a question without caring about the answer----just to see what someone's reaction, will be. (Ever heard someone say, something like: "UGH, somebody broke my..."; and, the first person, within earshot, to speak-up, will say: "I didn't do it!"? LOL The person didn't say "Did YOU do this?". I've asked round-about questions, more-than-once, as a teacher, and I am AMAZED that I catch someone, almost every single time----and, I was teaching ADULTS!! LOL)

IMO, Sessions was lyin' his butt, off, at his hearing----every little question seemed to fluster him; thus, IMO, making him look guilty (of what, IDK), even if he isn't. A PRIME example, IMO, of him getting easily flustered, was when some attractive black lady (I can't remember who she was), fired-off a whole long list of questions, and he 'bout pooped a brick (he even admitted that she made him nervous)----the problem, IS, IMO, that she did the EXACT SAME THING to James Comey, and he didn't falter, ONCE, in his answers (I think, IIRC, that lady even finished her questioning, WAY before her time was up); so, that was, pretty much, IMO, the icing on the cake that said that Comey was NOT lying. (In Sessions defense, though, Comey had already been fired, and was not fighting to keep his job, as Sessions was----but, IMO, Comey is so upstanding, that it wouldn't have mattered.)


But what if the first person who said "not me" after you asked "who broke my ____" said that because he already knew you were out to accuse him of something?

When it comes to this investigation, it doesn't seem like they're trying to find out if something is going on and set the record straight. What it seems like is they're out to nail people to a wall and collect heads.

If I were in that situation I would be nervous as hell, even if I had done nothing wrong.



Last edited by EzraS on 19 Jun 2017, 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 1:08 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2017, 1:53 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.


We do have our own intelligence experts who can identify the work of our enemies.
Don't be so ready to fall for the right's new battle cry: Russia is our friend.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 2:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.


We do have our own intelligence experts who can identify the work of our enemies.
Don't be so ready to fall for the right's new battle cry: Russia is our friend.


We have our own intelligence experts who can copy and put an enimie's fingerprints all over something. Like Saddam Hussein's fingerprints being all over 9/11 and that specific nonexistent stockpile of WMD's. What's that saying about the outcome of ignoring history?

It seems like it was either that or Putin systematically put his own glowing red fingerprints all over everything on purpose.

I'll also be sure not to fall for the left's battle cry: Russia is our arch-enemy.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2017, 2:40 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.


We do have our own intelligence experts who can identify the work of our enemies.
Don't be so ready to fall for the right's new battle cry: Russia is our friend.


We have our own intelligence experts who can copy and put an enimie's fingerprints all over something. Like Saddam Hussein's fingerprints being all over 9/11 and that specific nonexistent stockpile of WMD's. What's that saying about the outcome of ignoring history?

It seems like it was either that or Putin systematically put his own glowing red fingerprints all over everything on purpose.

I'll also be sure not to fall for the left's battle cry: Russia is our arch-enemy.


That was actually W Bush's own machinations, and not the CIA, that had falsely led America into that disaster of a war.
Why are you so eager to trust the anti-democratic Russian intelligence service over those of your own country?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 3:45 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.


We do have our own intelligence experts who can identify the work of our enemies.
Don't be so ready to fall for the right's new battle cry: Russia is our friend.


We have our own intelligence experts who can copy and put an enimie's fingerprints all over something. Like Saddam Hussein's fingerprints being all over 9/11 and that specific nonexistent stockpile of WMD's. What's that saying about the outcome of ignoring history?

It seems like it was either that or Putin systematically put his own glowing red fingerprints all over everything on purpose.

I'll also be sure not to fall for the left's battle cry: Russia is our arch-enemy.


That was actually W Bush's own machinations, and not the CIA, that had falsely led America into that disaster of a war.
Why are you so eager to trust the anti-democratic Russian intelligence service over those of your own country?


Trust isn't relevant to my thoughts on this. It seems clear all the glaring red fingerprints were meant to be seen.

The only question is who put them there? If it was Putin, what was his objective in leaving a huge flaming red arrow pointing at himself?



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

19 Jun 2017, 9:24 am

EzraS wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
Also, it is a tactic, sometimes, of people in authority to ask something in a round-about way----or, to ask a question without caring about the answer----just to see what someone's reaction, will be. (Ever heard someone say, something like: "UGH, somebody broke my..."; and, the first person, within earshot, to speak-up, will say: "I didn't do it!"? LOL The person didn't say "Did YOU do this?". I've asked round-about questions, more-than-once, as a teacher, and I am AMAZED that I catch someone, almost every single time----and, I was teaching ADULTS!! LOL)

But what if the first person who said "not me" after you asked "who broke my ____" said that because he already knew you were out to accuse him of something?

When it comes to this investigation, it doesn't seem like they're trying to find out if something is going on and set the record straight. What it seems like is they're out to nail people to a wall and collect heads.

If I were in that situation I would be nervous as hell, even if I had done nothing wrong.

Yeah, see----I didn't say "WHO broke my....", I said "SOMEBODY broke my...". I understand what you're saying----but, here's how I feel about it..... You said "because he already knew..."----but, the reality, is that "he already THOUGHT..."; I think someone in the psychology field might label that "projecting". When someone is truly not guilty of something, there's no reason for them to be defensive----at least, not before they've been given an actual reason / "charge" / whatever, and not what they THINK, will happen.

Also, there are those who are just automatically intimidated by authority figures, cuz they know those figures can do something TO them----but, again, only if they've done something, wrong. IMO, when someone keeps their nose clean, although it's not 100 percent, the chances of them being accused of something they truly didn't do, are slim, I feel.

As for the investigation, and them, seemingly, "trying to nail someone to the wall": I don't see it, that way----I see it as the FBI trying, honestly (both Comey and Mueller), to leave no stone, un-turned, and the MSM spinning it (meaning, they seem to only capitalize on certain parts [whatever parts of events that fit their agenda - if they're liberal MSM, they'll spin it THAT way; if they're conservative, they'll spin it, that way]). I watched every-single-second of BOTH hearings (Comey and Sessions), and, AFAIC, the media can't spin it, for ME----once-in-awhile, somebody in the media might say something, that I hadn't thought-of, and then I'm always glad, when that happens; but, more-often-than-not, they don't consider / come-up-with / voice things, that I have / think they should.

AFAIC, both Comey and Sessions showed their true colors----Comey, IMO, as a fine, upstanding man; and, Sessions, IMO, as a mealy-mouthed, pathetic little man, who SEEMS to be guilty of SOMETHING; and, quite frankly, seems like somebody who would do, almost anything, to suck-up to whomever. I can TOTALLY understand being nervous----I've certainly been called-on-the-carpet, more-than-once, in my life; but, my nervousness was INSIDE (like, "Oh, dear----I hope I don't forget to say, that part", and so-on - never let 'em see you sweat-type, thing). Sessions, though, IMO, was not that "kind" of nervous----he was, IMO, defensive; BIG difference!! Once he had this "flash of brilliance" to respond with "I don't recall", he used that for almost every friggin' response.





_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2017, 1:21 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I remember, Fox, Drudge, and Breitbart had attacked Obama with every facetious charge for the length of his whole two terms, but your side of the aisle never seemed to have had a problem with this.


I see this sort of argument from different people and to me it's saying team L is just doing what team R has done. Like 'we are the same as team R now'. Such as you're essentially matching CNN to Breitbart and Drudge. Team L is going around matching it's self to team R in many ways in their apologetics. "That's what they do, so that's how we decided operate and be just like them".

As far as CNN goes, it's more like a tabloid in how it delivers news about the President. If I want actual news I go to Reuters, AP and such. If I want gossip and sensationalism I'll go to CNN, MSM and such.


No, in my past posts, I maintained Trump was actually guilty of something, and so I believe the CNN reports on him are legit.


People across the globe were proclaiming that Trump must be guilty of something he can be impeached for the second he won the election. There's gotta be something. It's imperative that they come up with something to get rid of him. That's a fact.


Only because Putin's finger prints were found all over Trump's victory from the start.
As Trump has a long history of cheating his workers and contractors of pay, and cheating on his taxes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist that that behavior wouled continue into the White House, and so people were prepared.


I'd say it's very convenient that master spy Putin was so clumsy in leaving his fingerprints all over everything. It seems obvious they were meant to stick out and be found very easily. So one has to wonder what Putin was really up to when he so blatantly set up Trump this way.

....if it was really him that is.


We do have our own intelligence experts who can identify the work of our enemies.
Don't be so ready to fall for the right's new battle cry: Russia is our friend.


We have our own intelligence experts who can copy and put an enimie's fingerprints all over something. Like Saddam Hussein's fingerprints being all over 9/11 and that specific nonexistent stockpile of WMD's. What's that saying about the outcome of ignoring history?

It seems like it was either that or Putin systematically put his own glowing red fingerprints all over everything on purpose.

I'll also be sure not to fall for the left's battle cry: Russia is our arch-enemy.


That was actually W Bush's own machinations, and not the CIA, that had falsely led America into that disaster of a war.
Why are you so eager to trust the anti-democratic Russian intelligence service over those of your own country?


Trust isn't relevant to my thoughts on this. It seems clear all the glaring red fingerprints were meant to be seen.

The only question is who put them there? If it was Putin, what was his objective in leaving a huge flaming red arrow pointing at himself?


This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 10:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2017, 10:39 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?


He had been suspected to have been interfering, but it was never really provable, as he used independent hackers as cutouts. But when a coincidence keeps occurring, then it's not a coincidence.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 10:41 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
Also, it is a tactic, sometimes, of people in authority to ask something in a round-about way----or, to ask a question without caring about the answer----just to see what someone's reaction, will be. (Ever heard someone say, something like: "UGH, somebody broke my..."; and, the first person, within earshot, to speak-up, will say: "I didn't do it!"? LOL The person didn't say "Did YOU do this?". I've asked round-about questions, more-than-once, as a teacher, and I am AMAZED that I catch someone, almost every single time----and, I was teaching ADULTS!! LOL)

But what if the first person who said "not me" after you asked "who broke my ____" said that because he already knew you were out to accuse him of something?

When it comes to this investigation, it doesn't seem like they're trying to find out if something is going on and set the record straight. What it seems like is they're out to nail people to a wall and collect heads.

If I were in that situation I would be nervous as hell, even if I had done nothing wrong.

Yeah, see----I didn't say "WHO broke my....", I said "SOMEBODY broke my...". I understand what you're saying----but, here's how I feel about it..... You said "because he already knew..."----but, the reality, is that "he already THOUGHT..."; I think someone in the psychology field might label that "projecting". When someone is truly not guilty of something, there's no reason for them to be defensive----at least, not before they've been given an actual reason / "charge" / whatever, and not what they THINK, will happen.

Also, there are those who are just automatically intimidated by authority figures, cuz they know those figures can do something TO them----but, again, only if they've done something, wrong. IMO, when someone keeps their nose clean, although it's not 100 percent, the chances of them being accused of something they truly didn't do, are slim, I feel.

As for the investigation, and them, seemingly, "trying to nail someone to the wall": I don't see it, that way----I see it as the FBI trying, honestly (both Comey and Mueller), to leave no stone, un-turned, and the MSM spinning it (meaning, they seem to only capitalize on certain parts [whatever parts of events that fit their agenda - if they're liberal MSM, they'll spin it THAT way; if they're conservative, they'll spin it, that way]). I watched every-single-second of BOTH hearings (Comey and Sessions), and, AFAIC, the media can't spin it, for ME----once-in-awhile, somebody in the media might say something, that I hadn't thought-of, and then I'm always glad, when that happens; but, more-often-than-not, they don't consider / come-up-with / voice things, that I have / think they should.

AFAIC, both Comey and Sessions showed their true colors----Comey, IMO, as a fine, upstanding man; and, Sessions, IMO, as a mealy-mouthed, pathetic little man, who SEEMS to be guilty of SOMETHING; and, quite frankly, seems like somebody who would do, almost anything, to suck-up to whomever. I can TOTALLY understand being nervous----I've certainly been called-on-the-carpet, more-than-once, in my life; but, my nervousness was INSIDE (like, "Oh, dear----I hope I don't forget to say, that part", and so-on - never let 'em see you sweat-type, thing). Sessions, though, IMO, was not that "kind" of nervous----he was, IMO, defensive; BIG difference!! Once he had this "flash of brilliance" to respond with "I don't recall", he used that for almost every friggin' response.


I'm just saying he already knew he was suspected of collusion and that many people had already decided he was guilty.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Jun 2017, 10:54 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?


He had been suspected to have been interfering, but it was never really provable, as he used independent hackers as cutouts. But when a coincidence keeps occurring, then it's not a coincidence.


It's still not making any sense to me. His fingerprints were on all these other elections, but it can't be proven those were his fingerprints, even though fingerprints are supposed to be tangible and unique. And that is the claim. That the fingerprints could not have been faked. Yet this same standard procedure used in interfering in the elections of other countries apparently don't have those same definite fingerprints since there's no proof. It just keeps going in circles that have plot holes.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2017, 11:38 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?


He had been suspected to have been interfering, but it was never really provable, as he used independent hackers as cutouts. But when a coincidence keeps occurring, then it's not a coincidence.


It's still not making any sense to me. His fingerprints were on all these other elections, but it can't be proven those were his fingerprints, even though fingerprints are supposed to be tangible and unique. And that is the claim. That the fingerprints could not have been faked. Yet this same standard procedure used in interfering in the elections of other countries apparently don't have those same definite fingerprints since there's no proof. It just keeps going in circles that have plot holes.


What is clear is, that interference happened in those election that were pertinent to Russian interests, which provides motive to Putin.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

20 Jun 2017, 1:14 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?


He had been suspected to have been interfering, but it was never really provable, as he used independent hackers as cutouts. But when a coincidence keeps occurring, then it's not a coincidence.


It's still not making any sense to me. His fingerprints were on all these other elections, but it can't be proven those were his fingerprints, even though fingerprints are supposed to be tangible and unique. And that is the claim. That the fingerprints could not have been faked. Yet this same standard procedure used in interfering in the elections of other countries apparently don't have those same definite fingerprints since there's no proof. It just keeps going in circles that have plot holes.


What is clear is, that interference happened in those election that were pertinent to Russian interests, which provides motive to Putin.


If you say so. Not that I think Russia is above such interference since it's clear the United States isn't. But the lack of proof conjecture still remains mighty flimsy. Too flimsy for me to put much stock in it. But who needs flimsy collusion now that there's flimsy obstruction of justice to work with.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Jun 2017, 1:35 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
This was standard procedure for Putin, as when he interfered in the elections of other countries. We just happened to be on to him.
But seriously, then who was responsible?


I'm still finding this confusing. If it was discovered as a standard incriminating procedure by all those other countries, doesn't that mean everyone was onto him by then?


He had been suspected to have been interfering, but it was never really provable, as he used independent hackers as cutouts. But when a coincidence keeps occurring, then it's not a coincidence.


It's still not making any sense to me. His fingerprints were on all these other elections, but it can't be proven those were his fingerprints, even though fingerprints are supposed to be tangible and unique. And that is the claim. That the fingerprints could not have been faked. Yet this same standard procedure used in interfering in the elections of other countries apparently don't have those same definite fingerprints since there's no proof. It just keeps going in circles that have plot holes.


What is clear is, that interference happened in those election that were pertinent to Russian interests, which provides motive to Putin.


If you say so. Not that I think Russia is above such interference since it's clear the United States isn't. But the lack of proof conjecture still remains mighty flimsy. Too flimsy for me to put much stock in it. But who needs flimsy collusion now that there's flimsy obstruction of justice to work with.


The investigation into Trump and company's ties with Russia aint over yet.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer