What do you think about what's gong on at the Capital??

Status
Not open for further replies.
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Audioholic
The road map to a conclusion that the Mueller report was based on fraud was laid out for you to see. If Rep Schiff's concession on the validity of the evidence is not enough for you well you be you. Always fight for the freedom to express an opinion.
Since quotes are a thing today:
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" Twain.
What fraud was it based on comrade? Exactly was conclusions from the Mueller Report were false?
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
You can Google the indictments for yourself. You can also watch Rep Schiff discuss the fact that the "primary source lied" to Steele. Legally speaking it usually works like this: The person stating the falsehood has to know that the truth is otherwise = fraud.
(from an earlier post)

The Mueller report LOL has been further discredited recently in light of the indictments of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko by the Durham Special Counsel: (this will be buried to protect Hillary, etc)

Adam Schiff from Nov 14, 2021 interview on Meet The Press after the indictments:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Sunday he has no regrets about hyping the infamous dossier by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele now that Special Counsel John Durham has further discredited the already debunked document.

Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, had dramatically read some of the most explosive claims from the dossier into the Congressional Record during a March 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, including the now-debunked claim that the Trump 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.

During an appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Schiff was confronted with some of his past claims hyping the validity of the dossier and was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he regrets "giving some credibility to the Steele dossier before anybody had been able to verify anything in it."



"I don't regret saying that we should investigate claims of someone who, frankly, was a well-respected British intelligence officer," Schiff responded. "And we couldn't have known, of course, years ago that we would learn years later that someone who is a primary source lied to him."

Watch for yourself




Of course, Rep. Schiff is also on the Jan 6th Committee. His investigative superpowers should propel it to new heights and unravel all of the alternative facts.
 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Audioholic
You can Google the indictments for yourself. You can also watch Rep Schiff discuss the fact that the "primary source lied" to Steele. Legally speaking it usually works like this: The person stating the falsehood has to know that the truth is otherwise = fraud.
(from an earlier post)

The Mueller report LOL has been further discredited recently in light of the indictments of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko by the Durham Special Counsel: (this will be buried to protect Hillary, etc)

Adam Schiff from Nov 14, 2021 interview on Meet The Press after the indictments:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Sunday he has no regrets about hyping the infamous dossier by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele now that Special Counsel John Durham has further discredited the already debunked document.

Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, had dramatically read some of the most explosive claims from the dossier into the Congressional Record during a March 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, including the now-debunked claim that the Trump 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.

During an appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Schiff was confronted with some of his past claims hyping the validity of the dossier and was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he regrets "giving some credibility to the Steele dossier before anybody had been able to verify anything in it."



"I don't regret saying that we should investigate claims of someone who, frankly, was a well-respected British intelligence officer," Schiff responded. "And we couldn't have known, of course, years ago that we would learn years later that someone who is a primary source lied to him."

Watch for yourself




Of course, Rep. Schiff is also on the Jan 6th Committee. His investigative superpowers should propel it to new heights and unravel all of the alternative facts.
Typical non-answer which means that you're a moron.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
What fraud was it based on comrade?
Answer is: The primary source for the dossier lied = fraud.
Exactly was(sp) conclusions from the Mueller Report were false?
The answer is:
I stated the Mueller report was based on the above fraud.
I did not state the Mueller report's conclusions were false.

For further reference the below is the conclusion:

"Volume 1 of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities"
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
You make good points on behavior and tone. But we should not be surprised, he is after all a New Yorker and a former building contractor. Policies are more important the character. At least that's what the same people that criticize Trump's character said in the late 1990s about Clinton. But of course, if we are looking for consistency, we have to look outside of the political Left since they are all about the pursuit of power (remember, Conservatives want to dilute power). The Religious Right votes for him because they have no choice and because the left hates religion. He doesn't strike me as religious but he does fight for policies that they agree with. I wouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks about him or us. They are too busy trying to take advantage of us and entangle us in their affairs. The Founders of this country were right about that too. His trade policies benefited the American workers and the economy.
I don't necessarily want him back for the same reasons you mentioned but if there is a successor, he or she will require Trump's backing.
You are fixated on the term insurrection. I'm not the one blurring the definition. But if you want to call Jan 6 that, than you have to call Crossfire Hurricane and it's results leading up to the Mueller Report, Hillary and others claims about the illigitimacy 2016 election the same.
To close, would not quote Cheney, he's a RINO and war monger who was right on things about as often as a broken clock. As for his quote, its exactly what JFK would say if he were alive today.
Trump lost the election because of the political climate he created. If policies alone were all that mattered, he wouldn't have lost. That's the problem with Trump supporters: they don't get it, nor do they care. Being a New Yorker or wherever the devil alien sludge is from I don't care. And no, I don't have to call anything else the same. He pushed the election lie for two months. Jim Jordan too while I'm at it, and the end result is people storming the capitol. No amount of anything can excuse that. It doesn't really matter if the insurrection was this militia wearing camo and walking around with AK-47s. Poles, crutches, security barriers, American (ironic) or Confederate flag polls, etc will do just fine in that realm. When I say "the rest of the world" I mean those that have actual respect for us. As a poll Trell once put up, a majority "use to have" respect for us. Trump is a LOUD, vulgar fucker and behaves like the threshold of a child. He views himself in grandiose terms, and the election loss is just another symtom of his inability to accept defeat. I see no other president in either side who'd push the election gobbledegook this long. Again, Trump holding up a bible with that type of behavior is about the silliest thing ever. The people that do (or did) believe in that is like Projection 101. When he first ran, I liked when asked what his favorite bible verse was, he said, "I don't have a particular favorite. I love all of them." The campiness should be obvious. Consider it flickering moments of morality, but even the warmongerer sees what his party has shaped into. But then Ms. Vampire (Ingraham) had to attack him, not because he isn't right but because of the damage the truth says about them. The loyalty!

So if we don't like Trump or Cruz or anybody on the Republican side what Democrat politician and their policies do you favor on the Left and how will they solve our problems?

The standards are real low for me, but..........Not Trump.
Cruz, I guess if you can withstand the humiliation.:confused:
Edit: shouldn't be hard, eh? You're going up against Joe's inflation.
 
H

HTMAN

Enthusiast
Trump lost the election because of the political climate he created. If policies alone were all that mattered, he wouldn't have lost. That's the problem with Trump supporters: they don't get it, nor do they care. Being a New Yorker or wherever the devil alien sludge is from I don't care. And no, I don't have to call anything else the same. He pushed the election lie for two months. Jim Jordan too while I'm at it, and the end result is people storming the capitol. No amount of anything can excuse that. It doesn't really matter if the insurrection was this militia wearing camo and walking around with AK-47s. Poles, crutches, security barriers, American (ironic) or Confederate flag polls, etc will do just fine in that realm. When I say "the rest of the world" I mean those that have actual respect for us. As a poll Trell once put up, a majority "use to have" respect for us. Trump is a LOUD, vulgar fucker and behaves like the threshold of a child. He views himself in grandiose terms, and the election loss is just another symtom of his inability to accept defeat. I see no other president in either side who'd push the election gobbledegook this long. Again, Trump holding up a bible with that type of behavior is about the silliest thing ever. The people that do (or did) believe in that is like Projection 101. When he first ran, I liked when asked what his favorite bible verse was, he said, "I don't have a particular favorite. I love all of them." The campiness should be obvious. Consider it flickering moments of morality, but even the warmongerer sees what his party has shaped into. But then Ms. Vampire (Ingraham) had to attack him, not because he isn't right but because of the damage the truth says about them. The loyalty!

So if we don't like Trump or Cruz or anybody on the Republican side what Democrat politician and their policies do you favor on the Left and how will they solve our problems?

The standards are real low for me, but..........Not Trump.
Cruz, I guess if you can withstand the humiliation.:confused:
Edit: shouldn't be hard, eh? You're going up against Joe's inflation.
The Democrats spent 4 years and millions of $ trying to prove fraud when Trump beat Teflon Hillary. How many times have you seen that happen? Nothing sticks on her. They have been guilty of everything they accused Trump of. They learned from Obuma to use diversion tactics to pull attention away from them.
If all those celebrities who said they would leave the US if Trump won had kept their word we would be rid of some stupidity.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
We agree on some points and not on others but that's life.
An observation on political climate to consider since I've been watching it from Carter's election in 1976. Trump won in 2016 because of the political climate brewing since the late 90s. Some would correct me and say the mid 1980s(Bork, Iran Contra) and they might be right with some debate. Bill Clinton's failure to resign the presidency in 1998 giving it to Gore got Bush elected in 2000 (Florida, Supreme Court). Gore would have probably won as an incumbent. People forget how divisive the Monica issue was as well as the corruption. Post 9/11, Bush gets both Republicans and Democrats to go to war in Iraq, he does, and then the Democrats flip and crucify him in a divisive 2004 election that split the country after the brief unity experience after 9/11. In 2008, Ted Kennedy supporting Obama over Clinton was very divisive internally in the Party. Obama ran as a "moderate" in 2008 but governed from the far left. Traditionally we're a moderate country and many of them thought it was too far left.
All that built-up angst to 2016's upset by Trump. The climate only worsened in his four years. To think it was totally his fault based on character/behavior is not realistic. Reagan was attacked mercilessly too.
Like you, I agree the standards are low but those are cards we are dealt.
Unless something sticks from the Jan 6 committee or an unknown, unknown happens, Trump will bide his time until post Nov 22 elections. If the Republicans flip the House and Senate (looks likely) then he'll announce right after or sit back and be a King or Queen maker.
Then as always, we will be confronted with two candidates and go from there. Don't see the country will want 4 more years of current policies.
If it's Trump, try to remember what the Left teaches i.r.o. Clinton: Character does not matter.
Time for more coffee.
 
H

HTMAN

Enthusiast
Typical non-answer which means that you're a moron.
Just watching the Senate ask questions about Jan. 6. None of the Democrats can answer a single question. The only answer they can provide is "I don't know".
Stupid and moron has been mentioned. When top ranking officials not know answers about subjects directly related to their jobs I think stupid and moron fits their description perfectly. Also anyone supporting this group of communists is in the same category.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
We agree on some points and not on others but that's life.
An observation on political climate to consider since I've been watching it from Carter's election in 1976. Trump won in 2016 because of the political climate brewing since the late 90s. Some would correct me and say the mid 1980s(Bork, Iran Contra) and they might be right with some debate. Bill Clinton's failure to resign the presidency in 1998 giving it to Gore got Bush elected in 2000 (Florida, Supreme Court). Gore would have probably won as an incumbent. People forget how divisive the Monica issue was as well as the corruption. Post 9/11, Bush gets both Republicans and Democrats to go to war in Iraq, he does, and then the Democrats flip and crucify him in a divisive 2004 election that split the country after the brief unity experience after 9/11. In 2008, Ted Kennedy supporting Obama over Clinton was very divisive internally in the Party. Obama ran as a "moderate" in 2008 but governed from the far left. Traditionally we're a moderate country and many of them thought it was too far left.
All that built-up angst to 2016's upset by Trump. The climate only worsened in his four years. To think it was totally his fault based on character/behavior is not realistic. Reagan was attacked mercilessly too.
Like you, I agree the standards are low but those are cards we are dealt.
Unless something sticks from the Jan 6 committee or an unknown, unknown happens, Trump will bide his time until post Nov 22 elections. If the Republicans flip the House and Senate (looks likely) then he'll announce right after or sit back and be a King or Queen maker.
Then as always, we will be confronted with two candidates and go from there. Don't see the country will want 4 more years of current policies.
If it's Trump, try to remember what the Left teaches i.r.o. Clinton: Character does not matter.
Time for more coffee.
Of course Trump is the cause of all this. He took what was simmering and poured gasoline on it. His cadence alone is an indicator of his divisiveness. When Trump repeatedly spoke at his rallies of the 'good ole days of slugging punks,' you don't think the people who took it to heart did so by accident? Sure, you can't prove it in a court, but it doesn't mean the hatred isn't in the air because of his intent. Then there's the 'Mexicans are rapists' comment. The Proud Boys "Stand back, and stand by." His "There were fine people on both sides" during Charlottesville. The "there's blood everywhere," referring to his female opponents period. These examples and the election scam the guy manipulates and inflames the war. Your examples above are barely comparable because Trump does it right out in the open in front of a microphone.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
The Democrats spent 4 years and millions of $ trying to prove fraud when Trump beat Teflon Hillary. How many times have you seen that happen? Nothing sticks on her. They have been guilty of everything they accused Trump of. They learned from Obuma to use diversion tactics to pull attention away from them.
If all those celebrities who said they would leave the US if Trump won had kept their word we would be rid of some stupidity.
Find another Republican to believe in. You can't think of any other Republican who can defeat Joe? That says something sad about the state of your party IMO. I may have to move to Canada if Trump wins. The Advil isn't cutting it.;)
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
Because he doesn't separate himself from them, Trump gives these group like the alt-right a voice. It's really shitty coming from a formerly elected official.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
If we are throwing out random quotes to bolster our opinions of ourselves, I'll play! One of my favorites, attributed to Winston Churchill (but has existed in several iterations for several hundred years - I like this version) goes thusly: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain." No truer words, especially today...
If you're 40 or over and you vote against Trump, it's ok. Because it's Trump, the "rules" no longer apply. --Unknown:)
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
You mention many examples. For the sake of time I'll take the most famous.
Charlottesville, you have obviously taken the Media's spin on this and have certainly not read the full transcript of that speech or saw the speech replayed at the Impeachment Trial in Feb.
Not going to argue with you on that further. We both made our points and please don't leave the country because of Trump.

Looks like Ted is trying to get back into good graces. From CSpan earlier today. It will be interesting to watch the Corporate Media spin the below tonight it so the implications of the below are hidden.
Also, I wonder why she couldn't answer with a simple No.
Is an insurrection still an insurrection if it was aided by the insurrectionees? Interesting

Senate Judiciary Hearing today: Subject: Whether there were FBI Informants Present on January 6th. Cruz questioning FBI's Jill Sanborn.

Cruz: Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on Jan 6th?
FBI: I can't answer that.
Cruz: Ms. Sanborn, who is Ray Epps?
FBI: I am aware of the individual, Sir.
Cruz: Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?
FBI: Sir, I cannot answer that question.

Shows video of Ray Epps whispering to someone and seconds later that person starts to rip down barricades.

Cruz: Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?
FBI: I cannot answer that.

Cruz shows a FBI most wanted poster from Jan6 showing picture of Ray Epps on it. This photo was later taken down.

Cruz: Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th, Yes or No?
FBI: I can't answer that.

This makes me really want to see the 10,000 hours of footage from that day that the Feds won't release.
I wonder why...
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
You mention many examples. For the sake of time I'll take the most famous.
Charlottesville, you have obviously taken the Media's spin on this and have certainly not read the full transcript of that speech or saw the speech replayed at the Impeachment Trial in Feb.
Not going to argue with you on that further. We both made our points and please don't leave the country because of Trump.

Looks like Ted is trying to get back into good graces. From CSpan earlier today. It will be interesting to watch the Corporate Media spin the below tonight it so the implications of the below are hidden.
Also, I wonder why she couldn't answer with a simple No.
Is an insurrection still an insurrection if it was aided by the insurrectionees? Interesting

Senate Judiciary Hearing today: Subject: Whether there were FBI Informants Present on January 6th. Cruz questioning FBI's Jill Sanborn.

Cruz: Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on Jan 6th?
FBI: I can't answer that.
Cruz: Ms. Sanborn, who is Ray Epps?
FBI: I am aware of the individual, Sir.
Cruz: Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?
FBI: Sir, I cannot answer that question.

Shows video of Ray Epps whispering to someone and seconds later that person starts to rip down barricades.

Cruz: Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?
FBI: I cannot answer that.

Cruz shows a FBI most wanted poster from Jan6 showing picture of Ray Epps on it. This photo was later taken down.

Cruz: Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th, Yes or No?
FBI: I can't answer that.

This makes me really want to see the 10,000 hours of footage from that day that the Feds won't release.
I wonder why...
Sounds like another conspiracy from Cruz to drudge up. I don't believe Epps is an informant. It suggests he was a "plant." Again the entire motivation is to create doubt for a Trump return I assume. Who really knows or cares.

The point on Charlottesville is you'd never say good people on both sides when at least one side is racist. Most normal people would just condemn the whole thing.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic
He was just a plant??? That's what you got from that transcript? OKay, time will tell what happened like it has with Crossfire Hurricane.
 
H

HTMAN

Enthusiast
Sounds like another conspiracy from Cruz to drudge up. I don't believe Epps is an informant. It suggests he was a "plant." Again the entire motivation is to create doubt for a Trump return I assume. Who really knows or cares.

The point on Charlottesville is you'd never say good people on both sides when at least one side is racist. Most normal people would just condemn the whole thing.
Why didn't the Dems answer the question?
 
H

HTMAN

Enthusiast
If you're 40 or over and you vote against Trump, it's ok. Because it's Trump, the "rules" no longer apply. --Unknown:)
I have never like Trump for his personality.
Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Shitforbrains and so many others have spent their career in the WH.
Trump accomplished more for the people in 4 years than they did in all their years combined. Remember when Harris flogged Biden and called him a racist? The only reason she got on the ticket was for votes. Hell, she flopped on her first assignment.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Field Marshall
He was just a plant??? That's what you got from that transcript? OKay, time will tell what happened like it has with Crossfire Hurricane.
The vibe I get is because the FBI can't answer the question Ted makes up, well it has to be a conspiracy!!! There's the question of is this an "official" hearing of some kind? I'd think Cruz is one of the last people on the planet you'd want questioning to get to the truth. (He's recently retracted his comment that the rioters were "terrorists.") I believe Epps was once the president of the Oath Keepers, a far right activist group (ie Trump's buddies). I'll guess there's this questioning by Republicans because they know the FBI can't answer questions into a current investigation and want to use those vague answers to create a conspiracy.
Edit: according to Anderson Cooper, that wasn't the first time Cruz called the rioters "terrorists." It was his 18th time calling them that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top