Is Lynch About To Go Down ?

originally posted by: Grambler
That is not what the investigation is about! Uf it were only about ties to Russia, every person who has ever done business in Russia, or met with a Russian diplomat would be being investigated.

The investigation is about rather or not Trump did anything illegal with his Russian connections, like attempting to influence the outcome of the election.

AHA! Now you admit that it is more than just the Russians stealing the election too. At least now you can be honest.

So you are ok with no proof yet of any wrong doing of Trump, but want to see the results of an investigation.

I already gave you examples of smoke to investigate in the case of the Trump Russian thing. Like I said, you just don't want to admit it.

Conversely, you find me wanting to see an investigation of how Trump was surveilled and what Obama's admin had to do with it as making him guilty before innocent.

Can you really not see your double standard here?

I can CERTAINLY see the mental gymnastics you are attempting. That's for sure.

Why wouldn't the Fisa requests be proof of anything? So people in the DOJ or elsewhere in the Obama admin requesting surevillance on Trump or his people caan not be viewed as proof that Obams admin wanted to surveill Trump?

What sort of crazy double think is this?

Trump said that Obama wiretapped him. That never occurred. Surveillance isn't anything to be concerned about and certainly isn't illegal. It certainly isn't evidence of smoke to warrant further investigation.

Everyone reading sees exactly what I do. It has been proven that your own links show Obamas spokesman lied, and you can't admit it.

This is really destroying your credibility, because it makes it seem like you are not capable of having a serious discussion. You seem to be only interested in cheerleading for your side, and ignoring anything that makes your side look in the least way bad.

You have no idea how much of a hypocrite you look here desperately trying to piece an investigation into Obama out of thin air so Trump doesn't look like a blithering moron here.

And please. Leave my credibility at the door. I'm under no illusions that you even consider me to have credibility to begin with.

originally posted by: LSU0408
Yes he does, and you don't need to know where. It's as much your business as it is mine. No charges will come forth unless evidence is prevented so you shouldn't jump the gun and claim he's lying unless you have 100% proof that he is, and you don't.

That's a fair point.

However, you shouldn't claim he's being factual unless you have 100% proof that he is, and you don't.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hail from a reality where you can't say "Obama said" and then show me a statement from his spokesperson to back it up, because that means Obama didn't say it.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hail from a reality where you can't say "Obama said" and then show me a statement from his spokesperson to back it up, because that means Obama didn't say it.

You are so desperate to deny Obama that you can't even accept official spokespeople speaking for him. Lol. Apparently in your world secretaries don't exist and no one is allowed to speak through them.

a reply to: Taggart

IMO, he's going to be midnight tweeting without a good reason. If he's starting crap then he'll be roasted for it. Trump supporters aren't like Obama supporters. We'll actually chastise him/hold him accountable for being wrong. And if he makes it a trend, I'll guarantee a primary loss in 2020.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

He will not accept it. You can see what will happen based on this thread. This is what many on the left will do.

They will say well Obama didn't personally order it, or Trumps personal cell phone wasn't tapped, or it wasn't a tap as much as it was email surveillance and other things.

No matter what the proof is, they will play a semantic game to justify there certainty that Obama did no wrong.

I'm sorry that I adhere to the mindset of innocent until proven guilty and don't just randomly doubt someone's innocence because some blowhard leveled an accusation against someone. I'm also sorry that you are looking for any excuse to believe this is true so you can hold Obama guilty as you have already prejudged his guilt anyways.

And the irony of this is. . .Trump was immediately guilty of lying in your opinion...

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

Does he? Where is this information? Why hasn't he provided to anyone? Even the Justice Department is perplexed on this one. Hell. How about telling which department of the government specifically wiretapped the Trump Tower. The FBI denies they did it.

Yes he does, and you don't need to know where. It's as much your business as it is mine. No charges will come forth unless evidence is prevented so you shouldn't jump the gun and claim he's lying unless you have 100% proof that he is, and you don't.

Of course no charges will come forth. There is nothing to see here. It's a huge distraction attempt.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

He will not accept it. You can see what will happen based on this thread. This is what many on the left will do.

They will say well Obama didn't personally order it, or Trumps personal cell phone wasn't tapped, or it wasn't a tap as much as it was email surveillance and other things.

No matter what the proof is, they will play a semantic game to justify there certainty that Obama did no wrong.

I'm sorry that I adhere to the mindset of innocent until proven guilty and don't just randomly doubt someone's innocence because some blowhard leveled an accusation against someone. I'm also sorry that you are looking for any excuse to believe this is true so you can hold Obama guilty as you have already prejudged his guilt anyways.

And the irony of this is. . .Trump was immediately guilty of lying in your opinion...

Boy who cried wolf.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So just to clarify your stance on this.

1. You want an investigation into Trumps illegal dealings with Russians despite even clapper saying there is no evidence of this.

However, you think anyone wanting to look into Trump being surveilled in light of thee fact of all of these leaks and the fact that Fisa requests were made to do just that is wrong, and is claiming Obama is guilty before innocent.

You think that me pointing out that this is inconsistent is doing "mental gymnastics".

2. You post Obamas response on page 1 or 2 of this thread as proof that he didn't tap Trump. However, you then inadvertently post an article that shows that the Obama statement was a lie.

You then claim that none of this matters, despite the fact that you posted it, and you absolutely refuse to admit that the Obama statement lies.

3. You somehow are absolutely 100% positive that Obama did not "wiretap" Trump, and you think that anyone who wants to see more facts on this is a hypocrite.


So I guess that you are suggesting that we should ignore anything you post, because if we show you that it actually is a lie, or somehow dis[proves your point, you will just say we can't focus on that and want us to ignore it.

So why should we take anything you say seriously?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So just to clarify your stance on this.

1. You want an investigation into Trumps illegal dealings with Russians despite even clapper saying there is no evidence of this.

Actually clapper said that there was no evidence at the time but left the possibility open that evidence could be uncovered later. An official investigation report clears that up just fine.

However, you think anyone wanting to look into Trump being surveilled in light of thee fact of all of these leaks and the fact that Fisa requests were made to do just that is wrong, and is claiming Obama is guilty before innocent.

You think that me pointing out that this is inconsistent is doing "mental gymnastics".

Yes. Because you are selectively looking at the two situations and ignoring parts of them to strengthen your argument.

2. You post Obamas response on page 1 or 2 of this thread as proof that he didn't tap Trump. However, you then inadvertently post an article that shows that the Obama statement was a lie.

You then claim that none of this matters, despite the fact that you posted it, and you absolutely refuse to admit that the Obama statement lies.

I posted it as a refutation of Trump's tweet. That was it. You are the one who overanalyzed it to the thousandth degree.

3. You somehow are absolutely 100% positive that Obama did not "wiretap" Trump, and you think that anyone who wants to see more facts on this is a hypocrite.

Waste of the Justice Department's time and a distraction from what they should be doing. Investigating Trump Russian ties.

So I guess that you are suggesting that we should ignore anything you post, because if we show you that it actually is a lie, or somehow dis[proves your point, you will just say we can't focus on that and want us to ignore it.

So why should we take anything you say seriously?

You take things I say seriously? News to me. I thought you guys just laughed at me because I'm a liberal.

In any case. Be as coy as you want with me. We both know that at the end of the day nothing will come of these accusations. How is that investigation into massive voter fraud going? Or Hillary's indictment? Yeah this investigation will follow the same trajectory. A bunch of whining from Trump followed by Trump supporters holding the candle for his idiocy until the news cycle rolls over in a few days.

Though I'd really like Obama to attempt some sort of libel suit or slander suit, but I'm sure Obama will be the bigger man and just ignore Trump's bluster here.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: DBCowboy

By definition all FISA court cases are top secret.

You're not supposed to talk about it.

Did Trump just mess up and break the FISA court gag order?

The POTUS can declassify anything ... on a whim even.

a reply to: neformore

And you weren't making an assumption? That's all any of us have until we see proof one way or the other. At this point, it's up to Trump to prove his claims are correct.

a reply to: neformore

I'm not making that claim. I'm making the claim that he knows more than any of us, and that part is true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hail from a reality where you can't say "Obama said" and then show me a statement from his spokesperson to back it up, because that means Obama didn't say it.

You are so desperate to deny Obama that you can't even accept official spokespeople speaking for him. Lol. Apparently in your world secretaries don't exist and no one is allowed to speak through them.

If that's the case then instead of saying "Obama said. . ." you should say "Obama's spokesperson said. . ." especially when regarding another poster saying he hasn't heard directly from Obama on this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It got your attention, didn't it...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

there were 3 requests last one was approved. these are facts . and yes the president had it done.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hail from a reality where you can't say "Obama said" and then show me a statement from his spokesperson to back it up, because that means Obama didn't say it.

You are so desperate to deny Obama that you can't even accept official spokespeople speaking for him. Lol. Apparently in your world secretaries don't exist and no one is allowed to speak through them.

If that's the case then instead of saying "Obama said. . ." you should say "Obama's spokesperson said. . ." especially when regarding another poster saying he hasn't heard directly from Obama on this.

ORRR I can just quote that and not worry about silly semantics like this because they have no baring on the larger argument at hand. I'm sure you wouldn't be arguing that Obama would deny those words since they came from his official spokesperson or anything (and if you do then you are crazier than I thought).

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Krazysh0t

there were 3 requests last one was approved. these are facts . and yes the president had it done.

No. There was no wiretapping. A FISA request for surveillance doesn't count as a wiretap. Even IF you use a devil emoticon, it still isn't true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Krazysh0t

there were 3 requests last one was approved. these are facts . and yes the president had it done.

No. There was no wiretapping. A FISA request for surveillance doesn't count as a wiretap. Even IF you use a devil emoticon, it still isn't true.

From the NYT.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

The NYT thought there were wiretaps on Trumps team.

Edit to add source.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Grambler

What is the source of that article and what is it talking about? That looks completely out of context and you didn't post the url.