Social Spying on Trump confirmed: Operation Crossfire Hurricane ***UPDATE: Comey Admits, "I Was Wrong" ***

Throttlehead said:
HE DID NOT work for the CIA

You guys are completely nuts. He "claimed" he had a relationship with them over the years being transparent.

You started this thread saying Obama spied on Trump ( which was another line of bullshit from Trump), now you move on to other hairball conspiracies. Are you a soldier in the Q army Bob?
Click to expand...


Care to bet on your first claim?

I advise you don’t, because it was well reported before any of this he worked to achieve convictions against several people in 13 or 15.


B) The Obama administration admits it. Halper and a Female agent were instructed to make contact with GP. Read the NYT article on the first page.
 
bobgeese said:
PS, it was just confirmed that Carter Page, the man you were just supporting having his right violated by the fbi, was ACTUALLY WORKING FOR THE CIA.


Honestly, do you regret supporting violating the rights of someone fighting undercover against Russian interests in US politics?


Or do you just not care cuz “orange man bad”?
Click to expand...
Not sure about page but I wouldn't trust Trump with the nation's national security without a deep dive into his ability to perform without being compromised. The guy is simply not trustworthy. Too much of a bad moral character to be trusted and I commend our Intel agencies for recognizing the danger
 
hillelslovak87 said:
No, you put you money where mouth of your is.

This fuckin' guy........
Click to expand...
people are going down and it isn't President Trump

I miss an r on my phone and you think somehow you just got smarter..idiot
 
calavera2 said:
Not sure about page but I wouldn't trust Trump with the nation's national security without a deep dive into his ability to perform without being compromised. The guy is simply not trustworthy. Too much of a bad moral character to be trusted and I commend our Intel agencies for recognizing the danger
Click to expand...



For the 3rd time, this had nothing to do with Trump.


This is about the fbi misleading the FISA court and in doing so violating the civil rights of a man who was SIMULTANEOUSLY working with the CIA.


For gods sake, put your Trump hate aside and condemn behavior which you clearly disagree with. You can still hate trump tomorrow.
 
bobgeese said:
1) Yes or no,
Durham is more likely to find a crime because of his expanded scope of investigation.
Click to expand...

The correct questions are: 1) Was the evidence against the trump campaign in a lawful manner. That answer was yes. And, 2) Was the investigation motivated by partisan bias. That answer was no.

I understand this has been a rough day for you bob. You put a lot of gloating into this one, and it turned out to be a complete dud. So, while I can certainly understand you need to phrase your questions in the dumbest and most leading way possible, doing so, and spamming "dodge noted," isn't going to stifle the rest of us from laughing at you.



Dodge noted.
 
This guy is so stupid so of course he had to join the trump campaign
 
Joe said:
This guy is so stupid so of course he had to join the trump campaign
Click to expand...


Are you saying he's not going to be a millionaire cause I have it on good authority that he's about to cash out
 
second sight said:
people are going down and it isn't President Trump

I miss an r on my phone and you think somehow you just got smarter..idiot
Click to expand...

Lol, sure they are. The Russia hack never happened, but it was Ukraine for the Clintons, and Manafort is in jail for freedom fighting against it. Mifsud'll blow the lids off this deep state lynching. fo sho.
 
rob mafia said:
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/153851059/

hey, remember this?



so you claimed "dozens" (of instances of russian interference in the 2016 election) and posted zero/one ( i mean, it wasn't what you said at all, but i threw you a bone). still waiting for those 23+! oh, right. you ran away.
Click to expand...

There are lettered and numbered specific instances in the table of contents of the report, that again, I provided you when asked. Continuing to award yourself a medal for refusing to engage on the contents of what you won't read is asinine.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
There are lettered and numbered specific instances in the table of contents of the report, that again, I provided you when asked. Continuing to award yourself a medal for refusing to engage on the contents of what you won't read is asinine.
Click to expand...

this never happened and it's why you can't provide it now or ever.

you've been parroting this RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE! bullshit since at least may and you STILL never backed it up. gee, i wonder why.

you insisted there were "dozens" of incidents (aside from the aforementioned shitposting/leak "hack" that i brought up in the first post) and you never really even cited one. you ran away from it numerous times before in numerous threads since may/june. it's been 6+ months, if you can't cite ANYTHING to support your (obviously false) claims, perhaps it's time to finally admit you're wrong and man up?
 
rob mafia said:
this never happened and it's why you can't provide it now or ever.

you've been parroting this RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE! bullshit since at least may and you STILL never backed it up. gee, i wonder why.

you insisted there were "dozens" of incidents (aside from the aforementioned shitposting/leak "hack" that i brought up in the first post) and you never really even cited one. you ran away from it numerous times before in numerous threads since may/june. it's been 6+ months, if you can't cite ANYTHING to support your (obviously false) claims, perhaps it's time to finally admit you're wrong and man up?
Click to expand...

You asked for the report. I gave you the report and enjoined you to read it, or even the table of contents for the clearly worded and arranged list of examples pertaining to the Russian attack on our election. You have failed, at every turn, to so much as address even one of these examples.

I will not read for you, and I will not discuss, on your terms, the contents of what you refused to read.
 
Well, the significance of Durham's investigation and its findings has certainly been heightened.

The usual talking heads in the press aren't summarizing the report fairly. Certainly, the general conclusion was that there was no "spying", and that the investigation was generally run impartially, but there was serious misconduct on the part of at least one FBI official regarding the FISA application, and there are so many omissions and "errors" (let's be real: nobody was making mistakes) by three separate FBI teams construing obvious-- seemingly partisan-- misconduct resulting in heightened scrutiny of Trump's campaign that it's impossible not to be intrigued by what Durham might turn up.

Generally, I'd score this a win for the Democrats, but only because Trump made such a bold accusation. It's really more of a push. Certainly, Mueller's investigation wasn't a witch hunt, but then, Mueller's investigation wasn't precipitated by any of the same justifications used by the FBI to initiate this surveillance. Remember, that all resulted from Trump's later threat to fire Comey for pursuing the Russian sabotage we know was not committed by Trump, and that went on without collusion or conspiracy on his part.

The FBI's reputation has really taken a shellacking from all this. I'm not convinced Trump's has.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
You asked for the report.
Click to expand...

...right. so when i quoted you saying there were "dozens" of instances and asked you to cite them... i was really just asking for you to link the report (the report that didn't even state this, btw). that i already linked. directly from the .gov site. yup. totally. /s

this is even worse than your previous backpedaling. 6+ months, zero citations to support your claim.

at this point, i have to assume you know you're wrong and are just deliberately lying to promote your agenda.

hillelslovak87 said:
I will not read for you, and I will not discuss, on your terms, the contents of what you refused to read.
Click to expand...

like i said before, no one can read that which does not exist.
 
rob mafia said:
...right. so when i quoted you saying there were "dozens" of instances and asked you to cite them... i was really just asking for you to link the report (the report that didn't even state this, btw). that i already linked. directly from the .gov site. yup. totally. /s

this is even worse than your previous backpedaling. 6+ months, zero citations to support your claim.

at this point, i have to assume you know you're wrong and are just deliberately lying to promote your agenda.



like i said before, no one can read that which does not exist.
Click to expand...

When you asked to me to cite what was in the table of contents, I told you to read it for yourself. I don't know how many times it'll take before you realize that if you're not going to read even so much as the first pages of what was provided, you'll receive nothing more, as you're showing yourself to be engaging in pathetically bad faith.
 
Darkballs said:
The correct questions are: 1) Was the evidence against the trump campaign in a lawful manner. That answer was yes. And, 2) Was the investigation motivated by partisan bias. That answer was no.

I understand this has been a rough day for you bob. You put a lot of gloating into this one, and it turned out to be a complete dud. So, while I can certainly understand you need to phrase your questions in the dumbest and most leading way possible, doing so, and spamming "dodge noted," isn't going to stifle the rest of us from laughing at you.



Dodge noted.
Click to expand...



Duck #2

This time with support of violating Carter Page’s (who worked WITH THE CIA) civil rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,072
Messages
57,966,832
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top