Media bias is about selective coverage, not just rates of honesty

So blatantly and objectively inaccurate I stopped reading. You're just regurgitating Trump propaganda.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-d...w-for-sure-devin-nunes-lied-about-everything/

I'm not going to waste time on arguments this obviously disingenuous. You're just using this thread as a stage to reprint Trump's own "fake news".

Oh no, not Mother Jones! You savage, you. :rolleyes:

Obviously you are bothered by the fact that Trump is your president. But don't suggest that my thoughts are "propaganda" when you couldn't be bothered to rebut a single point I made. Rather, you stopped reading because you don't have an answer. You farmed out your counterargument to a Left-leaning commentary magazine. I doubt you bothered to read the Kevin Drum article you linked to, so I'll summarize it for you: Mr. Drum believes something Devin Nunes said is arguably false, therefore Nunes "has lied about virtually everything he said." That's not an exaggeration of Mr. Drum's poor reasoning. Here's an example:
blog_nunes_3.jpg

Look out, Devin Nunes! Nunes claims the FISA application "does not name Glenn Simpson," and "does not disclose the role of the DNC," when in reality... well... Drum admits that "the application doesn't name names." Ok, so maybe Nunes was technically correct. But surely the Court could have extrapolated from this discussion who the parties were, their motivations, and their relationships to one another based on the fact that one of them was looking to "discredit [candidate #2's] campaign." Right? Boy, Mr. Drum really caught Devin Nunes lying on that one.

Mr. Drum, BTW, is not a lawyer, or an investigator. He is probably the only person in history to "transfer" out of Cal Tech in order to major in journalism at Cal State Long Beach (read: he's an idiot, couldn't hack it as an engineer, dropped out before he flunked out). Turns out he couldn't hack it as a journalist either, so he spent most of his professional life writing instruction manuals and political blogging. Mr. Drum also supported the Iraq war, but I digress. Nothing Mr. Drum wrote rebuts the Nunes memo. No attorney would bother advancing the flimsy arguments advanced by Mr. Drum.

As far as I'm concerned, Nunes's credibility is pristine. And IMO you are the one regurgitating disingenuous "propaganda."
 
Just answer the question. It is an honest one and if the evidence is real I will change my position. Top 3.

Here's a quick summary of the "Top 3" off the top of my head, although it's hard to separate it from the rest of the evidence.

1. Text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

NOTE: this list is incomplete, as certain messages were released at a later date (here'a another article about them).

These documents give us insight into the subjective motivations of two high-ranking FBI employees who were in charge of both the Hillary Clinton e-mail case ("Midyear Exam") and the Donald Trump "Russian collusion" case ("Crossfire Hurricane"). This is important because, as all law enforcement officers and investigators know, the Court is focused on objective circumstances amounting to probable cause. Although pretextual investigations based on improper motivations are technically Constitutional for Fourth Amendment purposes (assuming some other objective evidence indicates criminality), fraudulent investigations of innocent persons based on falsified or planted evidence are not. Thus, if we can establish, using evidence of the agents' candid thoughts at the time, that they knew "Russian collusion" evidence was false or untrustworthy, or that they made "material misrepresentations" about that evidence, all searches and seizures conducted based on that evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The implications for Mueller's probe would be fatal.

There are thousands of messages, so I can't go through all of them here (many have already be discussed ad nauseam in the media). Among other things, the messages show that on August 8, 2016, Strzok and Page sought to ensure that "[Trump is] not ever going to become president," because "We'll stop it.” On August 15, 2016, the agents' discussion shows that they had settled on some version of the investigation now known as "Crossfire Hurricane," which they considered to be "like an insurance policy" against Trump "in the unlikely event" he was elected (i.e., an "an investigation leading to impeachment"). Before that point, the texts do not show that the agents were concerned with any connection between Trump and Russia. Shortly before Mueller's investigation opens, Strzok admits that he "know the odds are nothing" that Trump colluded with Russia, and he was hesitant to join Mueller's team because he believed "there's no big there there." Strzok admits "l can only take this [investigation] up to a point. After that Mueller and the bright attorneys will drive it, not me." Strzok and Page are both curiously concerned with career implications of the probe, and its social dynamics, rather than those evil Russians. Nevertheless, Strzok and Page eventually join the Mueller probe before being kicked off some time in July. Around that time, Page texts Strzok to say "Please don't ever text me again." That's the last text message between them (as far as we know).

There are other nuggets of joy buried in Strzok and Page's text conversations. The agents implicate President Obama in Crossfire Hurricane, noting that he “wants to know everything we’re doing.” This is corroborated by James Clapper's admission, during a CNN appearance, that
If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation . . . President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.
Strzok and Page also discuss different ways they can launder information from news articles into intelligence channels, making it appear as though they stumbled upon information by pure happenstance, and waiting until they "officially" know certain facts before acting upon them. They also mention moving their discussion between mediums so as to evade the reach of oversight and FOIA (e.g. "text on that phone when we talk about hillary because it can't be traced" and "there are VERY inflammatory things in the 302s we didn't turn over to Congress . . . that are going to come out in FOIA and absolutely inflame Congress . . . l will go review the 302s we didn't turn over and send thoughts to everyone" ). Obviously they are very deceptive, dishonest people. There's more, but that's all I'm going to go into now.

Note that because the texts are all time and date-stamped, you can use them to cross-reference certain activities which happened in the public sphere. The bottom line is Strzok and Page were driving Crossfire Hurricane, and we know what their motivations were. We also know that they are dishonest, and that they are very cognizant of ways to make an otherwise unlawful investigation appear validly predicated.

2. House Intelligence Committee investigations and Carter Page FISA Application

The house has been examining the origins of Crossfire Hurricane and other improprieties in the FBI / DOJ over the last 2 years or so. Much of the focus has been on a series of FISA applications which the FBI used to justify surveillance of Carter Page, ultimately leading to surveillance of other Trump campaign officials. The House Intelligence Committee determined, among other things, that the FBI relied on the so-called "Steele Dossier" in its FISA applications. The Committee also determined that Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president," and that this "clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time [the dossier was given to the FBI] and subsequently in official FBI files-but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications." Moreover, the Committee found that "Steele lied to the FBI" and that documents he provided to the FBI contained "materially false statements" of fact. Much of this was discussed in the FISA Memo authored by Devin Nunes.

There's more to say, but I've got to go, so I'm going to leave it at this: the House's investigation shows that the FBI agents involved in Crossfire Hurricane indeed lied and made material misrepresentations to a Court in order to launch an investigation targeting Donald Trump. For further reference, please read the documents I linked.

3.OIG Investigations (ongoing)

There are several investigations by the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The one I've linked above concerns the actions of FBI agents and leadership with respect to Hillary Clinton's e-mail investing ("Midyear Exam"). The main significance of this document is that it lays out a rather extensive and damning factual record of the actions by Peter Strzok, James Comey, Lisa Page, and others regarding Midyear Exam. Although it ultimately concludes that it found "no evidence" that the agents' bias affected Midyear Exam (a dubious conclusion), it also had no confidence that that bias did not affect Strzok's decision to prioritize Crossfire Hurricane over Midyear Exam. Note that there is currently a full investigation of Crossfire Hurricane still pending, and that it will likely flesh out more misdeeds by the FBI agents who sought to target Mr. Trump for political reasons.

Note also that the completed OIG investigations do not rule out the possibility that FBI / DOJ agents violated other laws which are outside the scope of the OIG's enforcement power. This means that potential violations of the Hatch Act, U.S. Criminal Code, and other regulation / laws loom in the background with respect to agents' conduct regarding MYE and Crossfire Hurricane. Andrew McCabe has been referred for prosecution based on his leaking activities, which occurred around the time of MYE and Crossfire, and probably in connection with them too.

Bottom line: the OIG reports are significant because they set out a lengthy factual record, complete with dates / timelines, witness interviews, and review of classified documents / materials. The conclusions are not as important because the OIG only enforces a narrow set of laws governing professional conduct of FBI/DOJ employees.

There you have it. My top 3 items of evidence (off the top of my head) that "Crossfire Hurricane" and the "Mueller Probe" are political witch hunts designed to target Donald Trump in furtherance of a soft coup. Only the most delusional Leftist still dare to call it a "conspiracy theory" at this point. As I have stated many times, the evidence is overwhelming. I predict that the "Russian collusion" saga ends very badly for the people who initiated it, and that Trump will emerge stronger than before.
 
Your first point #1 doesn't really sound very conclusive to me. I mean Trump is a shit show and lots of human beings are going to have that gut level reaction to him. He is disgusting. I feel the same way about him and it is justified because he is utterly unqualified to be president and mentally unstable in a way that causes him to harm everything good in the world.

Now from here I imagine myself as an FBI agent texting a fellow colleague and the texts you reference dont sound so bad to me.... I mean, being generous to the agents I could say that they were speaking as citizens and friends when saying they were going to stop Trump.

Or they could have been speaking as citizens who are also FBI agents who had or believed themselves to have good reason to think that Trump was colluding with Russia or compromised in some way. From that place they could have been speaking as citizens about stopping Trump knowing or believing themselves to have evidence or reason to believe Trump was compromised.

Obviously the third option would be the worst but it goes along the lines of two citizens who see that Trump is a degenerate piece of shit and who also think he is corrupt as hell and who are compromised professionally by these facts and because of this take any evidence they can to go after Trump. This would be really bad if the Steel Dossier was the only or even the main reason they have to investigate him. Only it isnt-- there are tons of other sources of info that lead them to believe Trump is somehow compromised.

Still though if it is option number 3 its pretty bad but even still there is NO WAY you could get me to believe that everyone above and below these so called conspirators are all to stupid or too in on it not to see it was all bullshit if it was. Your number 1 point sounds like at best some people had wrong motives for wanting to investigate Trump but there was enough credible info to get federal judges to sign off on it and to get many many fellow FBI agents to help with the investigation..... That's not very strong man and that's at best.....
 
The problem is that we all get our information from the same place with different slants on it, the 'news'.

What are we gonna do? All become investigative journalists?

I'll try to find the video on YouTube of all the news stations using the exact same verbage for so called news stories.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, not Mother Jones! You savage, you. :rolleyes:

Obviously you are bothered by the fact that Trump is your president. But don't suggest that my thoughts are "propaganda" when you couldn't be bothered to rebut a single point I made. Rather, you stopped reading because you don't have an answer. You farmed out your counterargument to a Left-leaning commentary magazine. I doubt you bothered to read the Kevin Drum article you linked to, so I'll summarize it for you: Mr. Drum believes something Devin Nunes said is arguably false, therefore Nunes "has lied about virtually everything he said." That's not an exaggeration of Mr. Drum's poor reasoning. Here's an example:
blog_nunes_3.jpg

Look out, Devin Nunes! Nunes claims the FISA application "does not name Glenn Simpson," and "does not disclose the role of the DNC," when in reality... well... Drum admits that "the application doesn't name names." Ok, so maybe Nunes was technically correct. But surely the Court could have extrapolated from this discussion who the parties were, their motivations, and their relationships to one another based on the fact that one of them was looking to "discredit [candidate #2's] campaign." Right? Boy, Mr. Drum really caught Devin Nunes lying on that one.

Mr. Drum, BTW, is not a lawyer, or an investigator. He is probably the only person in history to "transfer" out of Cal Tech in order to major in journalism at Cal State Long Beach (read: he's an idiot, couldn't hack it as an engineer, dropped out before he flunked out). Turns out he couldn't hack it as a journalist either, so he spent most of his professional life writing instruction manuals and political blogging. Mr. Drum also supported the Iraq war, but I digress. Nothing Mr. Drum wrote rebuts the Nunes memo. No attorney would bother advancing the flimsy arguments advanced by Mr. Drum.

As far as I'm concerned, Nunes's credibility is pristine. And IMO you are the one regurgitating disingenuous "propaganda."
kool-aid.gif-6763.gif

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...nunes-still-hasnt-read-mostly-unredacted-fisa
 
Because it doesn't exist in the MSM outside Fox (or the others that may have risen to that level of influence like Breitbart despite the tiny market share in terms of dollars). I take on my own party more than any other poster on this board, most likely.

But then I try to get a cup of jo, and I see this (jpeg scraped from CNN front page-- it's the lead-in to the article):
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/politics/donald-trump-vfw-unreality/index.html
b80250d1-9a31-4086-a965-390d8e125c64.png


The "clickbait" excuse doesn't justify this. The "President's rhetoric suggests the obliteration of the media."

There isn't a cogent interpretation of what Trump said within a country fucking mile of that reading. He's literally fabricating a narrative that doesn't exist.
Media outlets that have been reduced to this is why I just don't trust shit anymore.
 
This is beyond ridiculous.

It's a bunch of "GOP thinks this and Democrats think that"

Fucking clown shoes. Bunch of corrupt politicians being corrupt and not saying anything.
No, there's a reason you see dozens and dozens of Republicans in the press calling out Nunes and Trump on their lies, but you don't see any Democrats falling for the fabricated narrative Russler is pushing that just copy/pastes the names of enemies to the most extreme of the "anti-establishment" faction who believe in the "deep state". These enemies include our leading intelligence officials under Obama like Clapper, Comey, and Brennan. It reads like a The Hill editorial, which is a paper I like, but I can't follow them down this rabbit hole of conspiracy theories where they are literally contradicting their own claims made at the beginning of the editorial with citations of fact made later in that same editorial:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...gave-russia-a-pass-and-now-blame-donald-trump
The Hill said:
Long before the 2016 election, when Donald Trump was a mere private citizen, Russia was engaged in widespread cyber-aggression against the United States. Moscow racheted up those attacks during the campaign. And yet, despite knowledge of the ongoing cyberwarfare, the president at the time, Barack Obama, and his intelligence chiefs — John Brennan at the CIA, James Clapper at National Intelligence, James Comey and his predecessor, Robert Mueller, at the FBI — reportedly didn’t lift a finger to stop it.

Why? Because the Obama administration was obsessed with protecting its bigger agenda: namely, closing and implementing the Iran nuclear deal and trying to save their collapsed Russian “reset.” Calling Russia on its malign cyber activity would have imperiled both initiatives, so Obama and his intel team apparently chose to ignore it, even as it escalated.

After Trump’s shocking election victory, however, the administration switched gears and began waging a sinister campaign against him to deflect attention from their own gross failures, duplicity and actual collusion.
{<huh}
The Hill said:
As Russia ramped up its cyber espionage, the Obama team refused to say or do anything to address it until its first public statement in October 2016.
Tell me: does October come before or after November?


That's why guys like Nunes end up backtracking on all of their lies that misdirect from the very real intelligence concerns over foreign agents like Carter Page:
Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small
The central, and most damaging, accusation in the memo published Friday by House Republicans is that the FBI failed to disclose the bias of one of its sources when it applied to wiretap Carter Page. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding [British agent Christopher] Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” charged the memo. That was hardly explosive, or the kind of damning failure that would send people to prison or be worse than Watergate, as Trump defenders charged. But it was something. If true.

It’s not true. As the Ellen Nakashima reported, the application to wiretap Page did disclose that one of the sources of intelligence to generate suspicion that Page might be acting illegally came from a political source. It was mentioned in a footnote on the FISA application. Nunes was asked about this on Fox & Friends. He did not deny the point. Instead he insisted that it wasn’t good enough because the disclosure was merely a footnote. “A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” the distinguished Republican explained.
Don't get lost in the volume of Russler's babble. That was the precise KGB-inspired strategy that purveyors of the fake news were demonstrated to apply during the election on social media. If you're looking for juicy CTs, explain the coincidence of that connection. They simply pushed out more propaganda than common Americans had time or the will to vet exhaustively. He's trying to distract you from the real story.

The real story is that the Dossier had a massive influence on the formation of the investigation, but it is not the basis for it. It isn't the heart of the very real evidence that Russia meddled in our investigation, and even The Hill article acknowledges the veracity of that intel, and by implication the Russian meddling of the hacker groups it discussed in that editorial. I love Gowdy when he vents his frustration that we can't all simply point to the Steele Dossier, the Clinton connection to it, and how everyone was drinking at the same watering hole, but it's absurd to forward that the claims from our intelligence community about Russian meddling are rooted in that document.

Listen to this man. He's one of the only people who has been telling the truth, and nothing but the truth, for the past 10 years. This is a 12-minute interview that is must-see if you desire genuine clarification. I'm not going to timestamp it, because the first 5 minutes are incredibly important to hear, but Gowdy addresses the failure here to clarify to the American people how everything is connected in response to the question about Carter Page starting at 4:53.

 
Your first point #1 doesn't really sound very conclusive to me. I mean Trump is a shit show and lots of human beings are going to have that gut level reaction to him. He is disgusting. I feel the same way about him and it is justified because he is utterly unqualified to be president and mentally unstable in a way that causes him to harm everything good in the world.

Now from here I imagine myself as an FBI agent texting a fellow colleague and the texts you reference dont sound so bad to me.... I mean, being generous to the agents I could say that they were speaking as citizens and friends when saying they were going to stop Trump.

Or they could have been speaking as citizens who are also FBI agents who had or believed themselves to have good reason to think that Trump was colluding with Russia or compromised in some way. From that place they could have been speaking as citizens about stopping Trump knowing or believing themselves to have evidence or reason to believe Trump was compromised.

Obviously the third option would be the worst but it goes along the lines of two citizens who see that Trump is a degenerate piece of shit and who also think he is corrupt as hell and who are compromised professionally by these facts and because of this take any evidence they can to go after Trump. This would be really bad if the Steel Dossier was the only or even the main reason they have to investigate him. Only it isnt-- there are tons of other sources of info that lead them to believe Trump is somehow compromised.

Still though if it is option number 3 its pretty bad but even still there is NO WAY you could get me to believe that everyone above and below these so called conspirators are all to stupid or too in on it not to see it was all bullshit if it was. Your number 1 point sounds like at best some people had wrong motives for wanting to investigate Trump but there was enough credible info to get federal judges to sign off on it and to get many many fellow FBI agents to help with the investigation..... That's not very strong man and that's at best.....

You put too much faith in people and the government.

You believing the Russia thing is hilarious when you're trying to come across as some reasonable neutral party lol.

As much as you hate Trump, he's doing a lot better than the last 2 guys.
 
No, there's a reason you see dozens and dozens of Republicans in the press calling out Nunes and Trump on their lies, but you don't see any Democrats falling for the fabricated narrative Russler is pushing that just copy/pastes the names of enemies to the most extreme of the "anti-establishment" faction who believe in the "deep state". These enemies include our leading intelligence officials under Obama like Clapper, Comey, and Brennan. It reads like a The Hill editorial, which is a paper I like, but I can't follow them down this rabbit hole of conspiracy theories where they are literally contradicting their own claims made at the beginning of the editorial with citations of fact made later in that same editorial:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...gave-russia-a-pass-and-now-blame-donald-trump

{<huh}

Tell me: does October come before or after November?


That's why guys like Nunes end up backtracking on all of their lies that misdirect from the very real intelligence concerns over foreign agents like Carter Page:
Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small

Don't get lost in the volume of Russler's babble. That was the precise KGB-inspired strategy that purveyors of the fake news were demonstrated to apply during the election on social media. If you're looking for juicy CTs, explain the coincidence of that connection. They simply pushed out more propaganda than common Americans had time or the will to vet exhaustively. He's trying to distract you from the real story.

The real story is that the Dossier had a massive influence on the formation of the investigation, but it is not the basis for it. It isn't the heart of the very real evidence that Russia meddled in our investigation, and even The Hill article acknowledges the veracity of that intel, and by implication the Russian meddling of the hacker groups it discussed in that editorial. I love Gowdy when he vents his frustration that we can't all simply point to the Steele Dossier, the Clinton connection to it, and how everyone was drinking at the same watering hole, but it's absurd to forward that the claims from our intelligence community about Russian meddling are rooted in that document.

Listen to this man. He's one of the only people who has been telling the truth, and nothing but the truth, for the past 10 years. This is a 12-minute interview that is must-see if you desire genuine clarification. I'm not going to timestamp it, because the first 5 minutes are incredibly important to hear, but Gowdy addresses the failure here to clarify to the American people how everything is connected in response to the question about Carter Page starting at 4:53.



It's still just so much gobbledygook.
"We're victims of Russia"
"They're not our friends"

What? What did they do?

Oh wow. At 6 minutes he's calling out Hillary and the DNC lol.

This shit is just dragging on way too long with no conclusion.
 
It's still just so much gobbledygook.
"We're victims of Russia"
"They're not our friends"

What? What did they do?

Oh wow. At 6 minutes he's calling out Hillary and the DNC lol.

This shit is just dragging on way too long with no conclusion.
<LikeReally5>
 
No idea what Tommy Lee Jones reading a newspaper means.

Did Russia change votes?

Did Donald Trump 'collude' with Russia to win the election?

That's it. That's all we need to know. Don't care about maybe or if.
 
No idea what Tommy Lee Jones reading a newspaper means.

Did Russia change votes?

Did Donald Trump 'collude' with Russia to win the election?

That's it. That's all we need to know. Don't care about maybe or if.
Neither of those things are required to substantiate their hostile actions and intentions-- the breach of our national security. BTW, we've already linked those Russian hacking groups who violated our servers to Wikileaks who published what they stole for Putin, and Wikileaks are also the ones who distributed all of our CIA hacking tools to the rest of the world (a critical resource of both offense and defense as a matter of national security). How did Wikileaks get that, I wonder?
WikiLeaks Mystery: How Were CIA Hacking Tools Stolen?

Why such a low threshold for unproven conspiracies and intrigue all of a sudden? As I recall you believe that 9/11 was in inside job. Russia is stealing our cyberwarfare tools, giving it to Wikileaks to launder the counter-intelligence, and then you're out here like this is some dinner theater whodunnit.

Wake the hell up.
 
You put too much faith in people and the government.

You believing the Russia thing is hilarious when you're trying to come across as some reasonable neutral party lol.

As much as you hate Trump, he's doing a lot better than the last 2 guys.
Everyone including Trump believes that Russia hacked our elections.

I get that you believe in conspiracies and that is unfortunate if it exhausts you to the point you can't see when there are real ones.

You are a strange version of the boy who cried wolf.
 
Your first point #1 doesn't really sound very conclusive to me. I mean Trump is a shit show and lots of human beings are going to have that gut level reaction to him. He is disgusting. I feel the same way about him and it is justified because he is utterly unqualified to be president and mentally unstable in a way that causes him to harm everything good in the world.

Now from here I imagine myself as an FBI agent texting a fellow colleague and the texts you reference dont sound so bad to me.... I mean, being generous to the agents I could say that they were speaking as citizens and friends when saying they were going to stop Trump.

Or they could have been speaking as citizens who are also FBI agents who had or believed themselves to have good reason to think that Trump was colluding with Russia or compromised in some way. From that place they could have been speaking as citizens about stopping Trump knowing or believing themselves to have evidence or reason to believe Trump was compromised.

Obviously the third option would be the worst but it goes along the lines of two citizens who see that Trump is a degenerate piece of shit and who also think he is corrupt as hell and who are compromised professionally by these facts and because of this take any evidence they can to go after Trump. This would be really bad if the Steel Dossier was the only or even the main reason they have to investigate him. Only it isnt-- there are tons of other sources of info that lead them to believe Trump is somehow compromised.

Still though if it is option number 3 its pretty bad but even still there is NO WAY you could get me to believe that everyone above and below these so called conspirators are all to stupid or too in on it not to see it was all bullshit if it was. Your number 1 point sounds like at best some people had wrong motives for wanting to investigate Trump but there was enough credible info to get federal judges to sign off on it and to get many many fellow FBI agents to help with the investigation..... That's not very strong man and that's at best.....

We’re gonna have to respectfully disagree on most of that.

But I do want to point out the fact that Strzok and Page apparently started out discussing Trump as “disgusted” third party observers. How convenient that by the end of their text exchange, they’re discussing him as the subject of an “investigation leading to impeachment.” At some point, they crossed over from merely being third party observers. It’s easy to miss the jump considering how much they commingled their politics and work (which is already illegal under the Hatch Act). See 18 U.S.C. § 595.
 
Your first point #1 doesn't really sound very conclusive to me. I mean Trump is a shit show and lots of human beings are going to have that gut level reaction to him. He is disgusting. I feel the same way about him and it is justified because he is utterly unqualified to be president and mentally unstable in a way that causes him to harm everything good in the world.

Now from here I imagine myself as an FBI agent texting a fellow colleague and the texts you reference dont sound so bad to me.... I mean, being generous to the agents I could say that they were speaking as citizens and friends when saying they were going to stop Trump.

Or they could have been speaking as citizens who are also FBI agents who had or believed themselves to have good reason to think that Trump was colluding with Russia or compromised in some way. From that place they could have been speaking as citizens about stopping Trump knowing or believing themselves to have evidence or reason to believe Trump was compromised.

Obviously the third option would be the worst but it goes along the lines of two citizens who see that Trump is a degenerate piece of shit and who also think he is corrupt as hell and who are compromised professionally by these facts and because of this take any evidence they can to go after Trump. This would be really bad if the Steel Dossier was the only or even the main reason they have to investigate him. Only it isnt-- there are tons of other sources of info that lead them to believe Trump is somehow compromised.

Still though if it is option number 3 its pretty bad but even still there is NO WAY you could get me to believe that everyone above and below these so called conspirators are all to stupid or too in on it not to see it was all bullshit if it was. Your number 1 point sounds like at best some people had wrong motives for wanting to investigate Trump but there was enough credible info to get federal judges to sign off on it and to get many many fellow FBI agents to help with the investigation..... That's not very strong man and that's at best.....

We’re gonna have to respectfully disagree on most of that.

But I do want to point out the fact that Strzok and Page apparently started out discussing Trump as “disgusted” third party observers. How convenient that by the end of their text exchange, they’re discussing him as the subject of an “investigation leading to impeachment.” At some point, they crossed over from merely being third party observers. It’s easy to miss the jump considering how much they commingled their politics and work (which is already illegal under the Hatch Act). See 18 U.S.C. § 595.
 
We’re gonna have to respectfully disagree on most of that.

But I do want to point out the fact that Strzok and Page apparently started out discussing Trump as “disgusted” third party observers. How convenient that by the end of their text exchange, they’re discussing him as the subject of an “investigation leading to impeachment.” At some point, they crossed over from merely being third party observers. It’s easy to miss the jump considering how much they commingled their politics and work (which is already illegal under the Hatch Act). See 18 U.S.C. § 595.


We can respectfully disagree. Bottom line is I would need proof and there is not any yet. If these texts qualify as evidence then Trump admins meeting with Russsians is also proof...
 
Back
Top