SURVEY: Did the FBI and DOJ conspire on Russian collusion?

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

Prove these statements with a reference to solid news reporting.  If you don't I shall think you are a fraud.

 

We have the emails Manafort wrote, we know who those people are he wrote to, and they are directly linked to the Kremlin, we know what he said, and it is directly about the campaign.  We also know that Manafort previously worked as an agent to the Kremlin.  And you still aren't getting it, are you?

Quote

Manafort reportedly wrote to Konstantin Kilimnik, his longtime employee and a Russian-Ukrainian operative, on April 11, 2016, asking whether he had shown "our friends" the media coverage of him since his hiring as a senior campaign strategist.

"I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?" Manafort reportedly wrote.

"Absolutely," replied Kilimnik, who has come under FBI scrutiny over his purported ties to Russian intelligence. "Every article."

"How do we use to get whole," Manafort responded. "Has OVD operation seen?"

Investigators have concluded — and Manafort's spokesman has not disputed — that "OVD" was a reference to the oligarch's full name: Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska.

Kilimnik reportedly told Manafort in a later email that he had been "sending everything to Victor, who has been forwarding the coverage directly to OVD." Victor was a senior aide to Deripaska, The Atlantic said it confirmed.

 

[Kieran00001]

4 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Thank you.

 

You must have some idea of what an active investigation is and that during active investigations by the FBI, their evidence is never made public, right?

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Your professor has now become a legal expert.  Is your professor a lawyer?  Is he a constitutional lawyer?  Is he a law professor and if so, which school?  What is his name?

 

He is who you were quoting, do you not want to know for yourself?  Or will you just blindly repeat what anyone tells you just as long as its what you want to hear?

[TonyClifton]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have the emails Manafort wrote, we know who those people are he wrote to, and they are directly linked to the Kremlin, we know what he said, and it is directly about the campaign.  We also know that Manafort previously worked as an agent to the Kremlin.  And you still aren't getting it, are you?

 

I gave you one simple task and you were not able to follow through.  I asked you to name your source.  You provided me no source, but text of unknown origin.

 

Thanks for playing the TonyClifton game.  It's an A game and will cause you to think.  Please try again.

[TonyClifton]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

He is who you were quoting, do you not want to know for yourself?  Or will you just blindly repeat what anyone tells you just as long as its what you want to hear?

Show me where I quoted someone.  I did not name anyone.  I asked you to name the professor that you called a laughing stock.  You still have not done so.  I'll name my source after you name yours.  

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  Please consult your doctor before playing.  A thinking mind can be very taxing, only try to think if you are physically and mentally up to the challenge.

 

Try again please.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

Persecute is a more apt word, but you got it wrong, as usual.

 

Mueller was not constitutionally hired.  It will all come out eventually.

 

Got what wrong? You're just echoing Trump and a few other's opinions which are disputed. Opinions are not facts.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, TonyClifton said:

Show me where I quoted someone.  I did not name anyone.  I asked you to name the professor that you called a laughing stock.  You still have not done so.  I'll name my source after you name yours.  

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  Please consult your doctor before playing.  A thinking mind can be very taxing, only try to think if you are physically and mentally up to the challenge.

 

Try again please.

 

Good grief man, pull yourself together, this is not primary school.

 

[TonyClifton]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Got what wrong? You're just echoing Trump and a few other's opinions which are disputed. Opinions are not facts.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

 

 

 

I read what they have at the link above.  It does not address the constitutional issue.  They cherry picked one facet of appointing a special counsel, but not the Constitutional question as to the way he was appointed.  Nice try though.

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  For the above reference we will give you an honorable mention.

[TonyClifton]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Good grief man, pull yourself together, this is not primary school.

 

I have asked you now three times.  

 

How many times do I have to ask you before you admit you can't name him?

Edited September 24, 2018 by TonyClifton

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

I read what they have at the link above.  It does not address the constitutional issue.  They cherry picked one facet of appointing a special counsel, but not the Constitutional question as to the way he was appointed.  Nice try though.

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  For the above reference we will give you an honorable mention.

Never claimed the article articulates a  resolution. I clearly stated you are referencing opinions, not facts. Regards your other nonsense kieran0001's post clearly references the following article...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/emails-suggest-manafort-sought-approval-from-putin-ally-deripaska/541677/

 

IMHO you and the other antagonist are just playing troll games, about time to cease is it not?

Edited September 24, 2018 by simple1

[TonyClifton]

3 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/emails-suggest-manafort-sought-approval-from-putin-ally-deripaska/541677/

Having read this article, I have only one question for you.  It's a fine article.  Very enlightening.

 

Please point to the indictment and his allocution, where Manafort admits to Russian collusion.  You can do that, can't you?

[Dap]

On 9/23/2018 at 2:25 PM, mcambl61 said:

It's only surprising to the leftists that have been consumed with the irrational and emotional reaction to anything that doesn't fit into their ideological bubble 

Then I gotta ask you if you think it is a close call as well, and if so, did you expect the yes to have a larger margin? Just curious, but would still appreciate an answer, thanks.

 

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

I have asked you now three times.  

 

How many times do I have to ask you before you admit you can't name him?

Why on earth do you expect others to check the origin of the things you choose to blindly repeat?

His name is Steven Calabresi, he is professor of law, and the only professor of law to have reached this laughable conclusion.

 

You could try this article on the subject, this has been discussed in length, the appointment was very much constitutional, and even if it were not would you not see it more important to convict the criminals than get them off on a technicallity?  You're clearly not much of a patriot.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

[TonyClifton]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

You're clearly not much of a patriot.

I'll deal with this first.  How dare you. Reported.

 

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Why on earth do you expect others to check the origin of the things you choose to blindly repeat?

His name is Steven Calabresi, he is professor of law, and the only professor of law to have reached this laughable conclusion.

Why was it so difficult to provide this name?  Did it take time to Google?

 

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

You could try this article on the subject, this has been discussed in length, the appointment was very much constitutional, and even if it were not would you not see it more important to convict the criminals than get them off on a technicallity?  You're clearly not much of a patriot.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

I will read this article and then comment. 

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  For the article, you get a thank you.  For the ad hominem attack, you get a fail.  For the name of the professor, you get .01 of a point.  Penalties for being so late.  Thank you for playing.   Try again.

[Srinivas]

11 minutes ago, Dap said:

Then I gotta ask you if you think it is a close call as well, and if so, did you expect the yes to have a larger margin? Just curious, but would still appreciate an answer, thanks.

 

considering most mainstream media in NO camp  I expected a larger NO vote.

though im a YES.

 

 

[TonyClifton]

15 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/was-muellers-appointment-unconstitutional/

Fail.

 

You provided a link that was already provided before.  I have already addressed this article as a fail.  It does not address the manner in which he was appointed.  I never said it was not constitutional to appoint a special counsel.  Mueller was appointed unconstitutionally.

 

My original source was Mark Levin. 

[Kieran00001]

29 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

I'll deal with this first.  How dare you. Reported.

 

Why was it so difficult to provide this name?  Did it take time to Google?

 

I will read this article and then comment. 

 

Thank you for playing with TonyClifton.  For the article, you get a thank you.  For the ad hominem attack, you get a fail.  For the name of the professor, you get .01 of a point.  Penalties for being so late.  Thank you for playing.   Try again.

 

You are reporting me for calling you unpatriotic, no problem with me, clearly you are not keen on the constitution either.  I called you unpatriotic because you want to halt a criminal investigation of collusion with Russia on a technicality, I stand by my claim.

 

I was not difficult to provide his name, what made you think it was, just that I didn't jump to attention for you, what a silly little man you really are!

[Kieran00001]

20 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Fail.

 

You provided a link that was already provided before.  I have already addressed this article as a fail.  It does not address the manner in which he was appointed.  I never said it was not constitutional to appoint a special counsel.  Mueller was appointed unconstitutionally.

 

My original source was Mark Levin. 

 

Mark Levin was only regurgitating the opinion of Calabresi, you would have known that had you paid attention.

 

Quote

Mark Levin embraced an argument made by law professor Steven Calabresi

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/mark-levin-presents-overwhelming-constitutional-case-against-appointment-of-mueller-in-a-free-episode-of-levintv/

[riclag]

The dirty FBI and ,DOJ , and other  Top US Intel including some former British Intel should be wearing stripes ,many of these agencies under GOP and Dem admins. have been know to have abused their power in the past.Many of the basement dwellers don't know or refuse to believe because they are blinded by  their TDS. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by riclag

[TonyClifton]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

The dirty FBI and ,DOJ , and other  Top US Intel including some former British Intel should be wearing stripes ,many of these agencies under GOP and Dem admins. have been know to have abused their power in the past.Many of the basement dwellers don't know this or are blinded by  their TDS. 

Have patience.  Many have been fired, demoted, and are being investigated as we speak.  In time, we shall fill prisons with these people.  

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Have patience.  Many have been fired, demoted, and are being investigated as we speak.  In time, we shall fill prisons with these people.  

Someone accused me of plagerism  here when I wrote  this ,

 One has to start at the beginning ,the real beginning, the pattern of sources and methods that are all too often hidden from everyone and sometimes, very rarely, they let the  world get a glimpse at what is involved in the sources and methods of the powerful Intel Agencies. 

 

To make a informative opinion of the events in this topic ,I think one has to look at the sources and methods and events, that led up to it.

That would be  starting many years ago with the formation,direction and goals of the one's that control these agencies.

The past actions over the many years is a good indication of how these agencies have performed than and now.

[SuperTed]

Alternatively the anti Trump forces, the so called resistance and the failure of the Democrat party to accept the fact of the election, together with their allies in the media are tearing apart our government institutions and our society. Because of this, we are lesser as a nation in the eyes of the world, but the world is a safer place anyway as the US is acting from positions of stregnth by not apologizing or coddling our enemies.
 
See how easy? Everyone has their Weltanshauung.

Not coddling our enemies? Trump is Putin’s puppet and spent the first year of his Presidency being run around in circles by China. Russia and China are enemies (of different stripes) of the US.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Berkshire]

23 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Have patience.  Many have been fired, demoted, and are being investigated as we speak.  In time, we shall fill prisons with these people.  

You're right....

 

[SuperTed]

Thank you.

You’re welcome Tony! You’re the greatest! When are you back in Vegas? Are you making appearances in LOS?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SuperTed]

I hope they do make abortion illegal again but that's not what's going to happen. It will go back to the states and the states will decide whether it's legal or illegal. Some of you should get your facts straight.

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

That’s correct, and the majority of states will make abortion illegal.

Then the question becomes whether the federal government will make bringing a person across state lines, or accepting a person who has crossed state lines, for an abortion procedure a crime. That question will be a mini-Constitutional crisis.

Not as big a crisis, though, as SCOTUS deciding whether a sitting President can be indicted for acts undertaken while in office, given the problems with appointment of Gorusch and that Trump is appointing Kavanaugh.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[TonyClifton]

2 minutes ago, SuperTed said:

Not as big a crisis, though, as SCOTUS deciding whether a sitting President can be indicted for acts undertaken while in office, given the problems with appointment of Gorusch and that Trump is appointing Kavanaugh.

 

1

The things they accuse Trump of doing are at a time when he was not yet President.   

[Nyezhov]

14 minutes ago, SuperTed said:

 

Not coddling our enemies? Trump is Putin’s puppet and spent the first year of his Presidency being run around in circles by China. Russia and China are enemies (of different stripes) of the US.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Yeah China is really running us around. ???????????? Looks like Thailand is picking up a whole bunch of business, thanks Don.....

 

And Im dying to know how Don is Vlads puppet. Facts please.

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, Becker said:

How old are you? I would guess around 8.

They have a desire to get their point across.

[Ron19]

Bickering posts and replies have been removed.

[Spidey]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:35 AM, dcutman said:

25+ senior officials in the FBI A DOJ have been fired, demoted, or resigned over ethics of this so called investigation. There is no doubt they were and many still are conspiring to impeach, or at the very least undermine the duly elected president.

a.k.a. Patriots.