What if it was not the Russians?

Mr. Deez said:
I never gave it much credibility, and frankly, I never understood the rationale of pushing this story. It's so outrageous and crazy that unless one has irrefutable proof, one looks worse by telling such a story than by simply keeping quiet.
Click to expand...

The only thing giving it legs is that other less salacious parts of the dossier appear to be valid based on the FBI using is to bolster its FISA warrant to monitor Carter Paige. Of course, that was the most hilarious aspect of the dossier so in a TMZ crazed culture it got the most discussion.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The only thing giving it legs is that other less salacious parts of the dossier appear to be valid based on the FBI using is to bolster its FISA warrant to monitor Carter Paige. Of course, that was the most hilarious aspect of the dossier so in a TMZ crazed culture it got the most discussion.
Click to expand...
I keep asking for someone to show me what part of the dossier has been proven wrong. I get no answer. I don't know if it's true. Any of it. It will all come out eventually. In the mean time it's fun for me and SNL to say pee pee tape.
 
OUBubba said:
I keep asking for someone to show me what part of the dossier has been proven wrong. I get no answer. I don't know if it's true. Any of it. It will all come out eventually. In the mean time it's fun for me and SNL to say pee pee tape.
Click to expand...
You do keep asking that question, I assume because you think you are being clever. I normally would let a Sooner wallow in their ignorance, but "your argument has grown tiresome" as it was also put so eloquently by Saturday Night Live.

What you are doing is offering an argumentum ad ignorantiam. It is a fallacious appeal to lack of proof, which is your way of avoiding offering proof that something does exist. The fallacy is that you argue that because something has not been proven NOT to be the case, it is concluded that it IS the case, which of course is false.

I could make many claims about your sexuality and moral leanings, especially in light of your desire to watch people pee, and then require that you prove those claims to be incorrect, which you could not do. That would not make my claims valid, but I am not interested in proving your obviously weird sexual habits, and stunningly abhorrent lack of morality.:ousucks:
 
iatrogenic said:
You do keep asking that question, I assume because you think you are being clever. I normally would let a Sooner wallow in their ignorance, but "your argument has grown tiresome" as it was also put so eloquently by Saturday Night Live.

What you are doing is offering an argumentum ad ignorantiam. It is a fallacious appeal to lack of proof, which is your way of avoiding offering proof that something does exist. The fallacy is that you argue that because something has not been proven NOT to be the case, it is concluded that it IS the case, which of course is false.

I could make many claims about your sexuality and moral leanings, especially in light of your desire to watch people pee, and then require that you prove those claims to be incorrect, which you could not do. That would not make my claims valid, but I am not interested in proving your obviously weird sexual habits, and stunningly abhorrent lack of morality.:ousucks:
Click to expand...
Well played good sir. I will say that I think your claim that OU sucks fits your fallacy.

I don't know if any of it is true. I will search the World Wide Web for a summary of all of its inaccuracies. :)
 
Comey says -- "There is no Anthony Weiner statute."

Good to know

More Comey: At the time we found classified info on Weiner's laptop he did not have the proper clearance (not stated but it's a crime)

And thus sensitive emails from HRC's illicit server containing classified info were forwarded to a guy investigated for improper contact w/ a minor. here is what Anthony Weiner (who had access to Hillary's emails) texted to a 15-year old girl -- "I will leave you limping and leaking for days!"
 
Last edited:
Good grief -- Fusion GPS has been accused of illegally paying Russian spies and undermining U.S. sanctions on Russia


C-6Zo3OXUAAUsRR.jpg
 
Comey did find FusionGPS (the discredited dossier people) has ties to Russia.

Comey did not find Trump ties to Russia.
 
What a joke. Useless Libs sounding like cult parrots one after another hammering away that Comey's reopened investigation announcement lost the election.

While Reps are proving actual crimes took place with HRC's bunch by making Comey admit her campaign illegally sent classified emails to Weiner who had no clearance.

Intent my *ss. If anybody else did that they'd be charged and convicted without a second thought. Comey didn't cost HRC the election, he saved he f'n candidacy by shielding her from prosecution over multiple counts of factual, proven crimes.

How's that convicted sailor doing who took selfies in a sub? Where was the intent to share classified secrets on that? Double-standard garbage...par for the Liberal course.
 
d77fb2ca75919016096401c673167eb9.jpg



Top Senator: Wait, The Firm Behind Trump Dossier Was Funded By Russia?
Senators want answers about a Justice Department complaint that the opposition research firm behind the debunked Trump dossier was funded by Russians.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/03...rm-behind-trump-dossier-was-funded-by-russia/

Multiple U.S. senators are now demanding that FBI Director James Comey disclose whether Fusion GPS, the Democratic opposition research firm that produced the debunked dossier on President Trump’s alleged Russia ties, was itself a Russian agent working on behalf of Vladimir Putin’s regime. In a letter sent to Comey in March, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) dropped a bombshell and disclosed that a complaint against Fusion GPS had been filed with the Department of Justice alleging that the oppo firm “violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by working on behalf of Russian principals to undermine U.S. sanctions against Russians.”

On Wednesday, another senator joined the mix with pointed questions for the embattled FBI head. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who has been a vocal critic of President Trump, peppered Comey with questions about ties between Fusion GPS and what Graham termed “the Russian intelligence apparatus”:

Graham: Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey: I know the name.
Graham: Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey: I can’t say.
Graham: Do you agree with me that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey: I don’t want to say.​
 
Something tells me the posters here who were pushing this story as soon as Hillary lost the election are not going to be apologizing anytime soon.
But, hey, surprise me .....
 
Brad Austin said:
Comey didn't cost HRC the election, he saved he f'n candidacy by shielding her from prosecution over multiple counts of factual, proven crimes.
Click to expand...

It's sickening that in the United State of America that there are people that are above the law. No consequences means others will do it in the future.
 
Under the statute at issue here, the standard for mishandling classified info is gross negligence, not knowledge/intent as he insists

If hundreds and hundreds of classified emails are not at least gross negligence, then there are probably several people sitting in prison who should be freed


 
Last edited:
Applying for and receiving classified clearance is no trivial matter. Anyone granted these privileges is made well aware they're prohibited from sharing any such materials with others lacking appropriate clearance. They also sign a form that defines these illegal actions and the punishment for doing so.

Having Weiner print out emails containing classified info is no less of a crime than forwarding them to a local Kinko's employee for the same purpose.

If Huma had sent classified emails to Joe Blow at Kinkos to print for her, would Comey still claim she had no intent and charges weren't appropriate? It doesn't matter if it's a spouse or stranger, if the receiver doesn't have classified clearance, it's against the law.

Comey's 'no intent' conclusion is contrived bs. Did Huma know her horndog hubby didn't have the necessary classified clearance she did? Of course, why would he? Did she send him classified emails anyway? Yes.

So how itf is that not gross negligence with intent to boot? What a crock! :smh:
 
Last edited:
Weiner, Rice, Obama, Huma, Clinton, Lynch- all front running scumbags of the highest order. There is no way around it.
 
Months into the Libs priority #1 investigation, one of the main Trump-Russia witch hunters just confirmed what sane people already know...

 
Joe Fan said:
Under the statute at issue here, the standard for mishandling classified info is gross negligence, not knowledge/intent as he insists

If hundreds and hundreds of classified emails are not at least gross negligence, then there are probably several people sitting in prison who should be freed


Click to expand...


Wow.

So Huma apparently didn't realize it was illegal to forward classified emails to her spouse? And she violates the law because Hillary doesn't like reading emails off a screen and has to have everything printed out? So he declined to push the investigation forward because she didn't realize she was doing anything wrong???

This was Hillary's right hand. And people talk about Trump's team being amateur hour...
 
ProdigalHorn said:
......So Huma apparently didn't realize it was illegal to forward classified emails to her spouse? And she violates the law because Hillary doesn't like reading emails off a screen and has to have everything printed out? So he declined to push the investigation forward because she didn't realize she was doing anything wrong???...
Click to expand...

Here is what Connecticut Senator and ex-US Attorney Richard Blumenthal (Dem) said this morning on this issue

“If there was classified information that was improperly passed to a person unauthorized to receive it. Yes it’s a crime. Without knowing what the intentions were and so forth, there is potentially a prosecutable crime.”​

Asked if she should be prosecuted --

“It still may be potentially. It’s not outside the statute of limitations. Who will decide it? That’s why we need a special prosecutor to review all of this investigative material.” ​
 
You never know how this is going to play out, but this is a guy that has followed the Hillary odyssey religiously for quite a while. If you want additional background, take this in. If nothing else, its entertaining.

Clip one is a review to catch up.



Clip two sheds light on the use of blackberrys.



Clip three touches on Hillary, Huma, and Wiener

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top