Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

#626
#626
ajvol01 said:
Here's the thing Mick.

When the dossier was used as the key piece of evidence to get a judge's signature on a FISA warrant it was supposed to have already been verified by the agents applying for the warrant.

The judge doesn't investigate the evidence - the agents swear the evidence is verified and true.

The dossier was used as evidence for the initial warrant and 3 extensions.

Comey testified the dossier was salacious and unverified in 2017.

Illegal spying on political opponents isn't justifiable. Illegal spying on Americans isn't ok.

Why are the democrats ignoring the facts?
Click to expand...

Mick said:
Sorry your diarrhea has nut in it.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
That was your response of choice to his well thought out reply?
Click to expand...

Mick said:
That is not a point he even remotely tried to make. Just you

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.



This is where you became an a$$



After that you spewed as much BS as anyone Because you just wanted to argue and make underhanded remarks. Like I said you are more rectum than man if you cannot admit that you were making a fools arguement to begin with. This is your MO. Too bad I beat you to the corroboration definition since you also like to argue the definition of words. Corroborate does not mean proven.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, Mick... You're just wrong.

Slowly and carefully reread the reply you so crassly responded to.

He pointed out that that's not how it works. It's not about disproving the evidence as you asked. It's about the evidence being proven...corroborated...and the DoJ officials testifying that it has.

In other words, they have to prove the evidence is true. It's not true until proven otherwise. (You seriously want legal accusations treated this way?!)

The entire conversation as I've claimed has been as I claimed. Your skin was just so thin about being called out on it that you saw red and forgot what had been posted.

Now... I'm sure you'd like us all to forget how you've responded so immaturely and in such an asinine manner, but the problem is that the posts are there for historical value.
So, I've quoted the conversation. I've even bolded to make it easier for you.

Now is the time where you lash out, call me a rectum, tell me to FO. Go ahead.

You'd better serve yourself to not. This isn't a good look for you. You should put down the shovel and stop trying to dig your way out.

But I'm not convinced you can at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#627
#627
luthervol said:
OC will continue straining at a gnat while swallowing the camel. Do yourself a favor and move on and let OC have his gnat.
Click to expand...

Hey look. The other guy that hates multi-quotes he can't hide from so he accuses me of asinine things like the above.
 
#629
#629
ajvol01 said:
Unknown. The DOJ is stonewalling the release of the FISA application.

Alleged by republicans that the Steele dossier was the bulk of the evidence used in the application and 3 extensions.
Click to expand...

Yep I know. I was just “summarizing” with the “?”s😬
 
#631
#631
Orange_Crush said:
Here's the thing, Mick... You're just wrong.

Slowly and carefully reread the reply you so crassly responded to.

He pointed out that that's not how it works. It's not about disproving the evidence as you asked. It's about the evidence being proven...corroborated...and the DoJ officials testifying that it has.

In other words, they have to prove the evidence is true. It's not true until proven otherwise. (You seriously want legal accusations treated this way?!)

The entire conversation as I've claimed has been as I claimed. Your skin was just so thin about being called out on it that you saw red and forgot what had been posted.

Now... I'm sure you'd like us all to forget how you've responded so immaturely and in such an asinine manner, but the problem is that the posts are there for historical value.
So, I've quoted the conversation. I've even bolded to make it easier for you.

Now is the time where you lash out, call me a rectum, tell me to FO. Go ahead.

You'd better serve yourself to not. This isn't a good look for you. You should put down the shovel and stop trying to dig your way out.

But I'm not convinced you can at this point.
Click to expand...

Your first mistake was to try to defend his statement which he completely characterized as illegal and nefarious. Your second was to try to say he was trying to make a point that he wasn't. The third was to make your underhanded remarks and kept doubling down on your petty argument filled with underhanded remarks. You are pathetic or as you might say If you were trying to be pathetic, that would be the way to achieve it and loose any credibility. This isn't a good look for you.

Man up if you can "but I'm not convinced you can at this point." You have already taken it too far. I will look forward to the next time you post anything anywhere.:hi:
 
#632
#632
Mick said:
Your first mistake was to try to defend his statement which he completely characterized as illegal and nefarious. Your second was to try to say he was trying to make a point that he wasn't. The third was to make your underhanded remarks and kept doubling down on your petty argument filled with underhanded remarks. You are pathetic or as you might say If you were trying to be pathetic, that would be the way to achieve it and loose any credibility. This isn't a good look for you.

Man up if you can "but I'm not convinced you can at this point." You have already taken it too far. I will look forward to the next time you post anything anywhere.:hi:
Click to expand...

What was the fourth thing?
 
#633
#633
Mick said:
Your first mistake was to try to defend his statement which he completely characterized as illegal and nefarious. Your second was to try to say he was trying to make a point that he wasn't. The third was to make your underhanded remarks and kept doubling down on your petty argument filled with underhanded remarks. You are pathetic or as you might say If you were trying to be pathetic, that would be the way to achieve it and loose any credibility. This isn't a good look for you.

Man up if you can "but I'm not convinced you can at this point." You have already taken it too far. I will look forward to the next time you post anything anywhere.:hi:
Click to expand...

My only mistake was having higher expectations of you apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#634
#634
AirVol said:
What was the fourth thing?
Click to expand...

Three strikes and you're out! It was just yesterday that I thanked him for setting the record straight with another poster and commented on how we were getting along and I would like to keep it that way. Today he apparently didn't want to keep it that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#635
#635
Mick said:
Three strikes and you're out! It was just yesterday that I thanked him for setting the record straight with another poster and commented on how we were getting along and I would like to keep it that way. Today he apparently didn't want to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. All I did was critique your diarrhea response and logic and then tell you you missed the point and it's a bad look. Beyond that I just stuck to my guns because i am correct.

My goodness you're acting like a fragile little kid. This board may not be the place for you.
 
#636
#636
orange_crush said:
this is hilarious. All i did was critique your diarrhea response and logic and then tell you you missed the point and it's a bad look. Beyond that i just stuck to my guns because i am correct.

My goodness you're acting like a fragile little kid. This board may not be the place for you.
Click to expand...

💩🥜💩
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#638
#638
Orange_Crush said:
This is hilarious. All I did was critique your diarrhea response and logic and then tell you you missed the point and it's a bad look. Beyond that I just stuck to my guns because i am correct.

My goodness you're acting like a fragile little kid. This board may not be the place for you.
Click to expand...


You're a sad deceitful little person if you want to go with that narrative now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#639
#639
GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with 'full arsenal of constitutional weapons' if they don't comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns

GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with 'full arsenal of constitutional weapons' if they don't comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns | Fox News

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday" that House Speaker Paul Ryan led a meeting Friday night with senior members of the DOJ and FBI, and made it clear that “there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request.”

The House Judiciary Committee has requested more than a million documents from the FBI and DOJ relating to the Hillary Clinton email probe, the firing of former top FBI official Andrew McCabe, and reported surveillance of a Trump aide during the 2016 presidential election

...
Click to expand...
 
#640
#640
BigOrangeD said:
GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with 'full arsenal of constitutional weapons' if they don't comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns

GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with 'full arsenal of constitutional weapons' if they don't comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns | Fox News
Click to expand...

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told "Fox News Sunday" that House Speaker Paul Ryan led a meeting Friday night with senior members of the DOJ and FBI, and made it clear that “there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request.”

The House Judiciary Committee has requested more than a million documents from the FBI and DOJ relating to the Hillary Clinton email probe, the firing of former top FBI official Andrew McCabe, and reported surveillance of a Trump aide during the 2016 presidential election
Click to expand...

Didn't get the OIG report they desired so I guess they want to investigate the OIG.
 
#641
#641
Mick said:
Didn't get the OIG report they desired so I guess they want to investigate the OIG.
Click to expand...

If they're looking for the report they want, I'd suggest subpoenaing Nunes' ass. Probably hiding in there somewhere. That's the place from which they pulled his last bs memo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#642
#642
A top FBI agent who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation after the discovery of anti-Trump texts he sent to his mistress is willing to testify before Congress about his actions, his attorney confirmed Sunday.

Aitan Goelman, the attorney for Peter Strzok, told The Washington Post that his client would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and would be willing to testify without an immunity deal.

FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify before Congress - The Washington Post
 
#643
#643
Mick said:
A top FBI agent who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation after the discovery of anti-Trump texts he sent to his mistress is willing to testify before Congress about his actions, his attorney confirmed Sunday.

Aitan Goelman, the attorney for Peter Strzok, told The Washington Post that his client would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and would be willing to testify without an immunity deal.

FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify before Congress - The Washington Post
Click to expand...



Against who?
HRC?
Comey?
**** about to hit the fan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#644
#644
Mick said:
A top FBI agent who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation after the discovery of anti-Trump texts he sent to his mistress is willing to testify before Congress about his actions, his attorney confirmed Sunday.

Aitan Goelman, the attorney for Peter Strzok, told The Washington Post that his client would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and would be willing to testify without an immunity deal.

FBI agent removed from Russia probe for anti-Trump texts says he’s willing to testify before Congress - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

please put this on cspan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#649
#649
evillawyer said:
As long as you're not sitting next to Devin Nunes, you may not get hit. Watching this guy blow up Nunes' half-baked conspiracy theories will be great. Be like Aaron Judge vs. batting practice.
Click to expand...

What conspiracy theories?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top