Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said: Yes it does, with a presidential election in the backdrop of these investigations it absolutely does matter. You are absolutely right. It DOES MATTER but some are so blinded by their biased they can't see that. It goes to the very core and integrity of our election process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said: From where I sit, both give the appearance of trying to do the right thing. In politics, that draws backlash. Well, from where I sit, it seems that Nunes- who didn't even bother to read the source material - is comically overplaying his hand. It has already backfired and will get worse. (But everything sounded TERRIFIC today when Rush Limbaugh interviewed him. Well, except for the traitorous left and their enablers, "the media".....) Nunes is huckster who bets on the ignorance of most Americans - well at least, 30% - to push his schtick. He's Trump's 'mini-me'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 9 minutes ago, homersapien said: Well, from where I sit, it seems that Nunces - who didn't even bother to read the source material - is comically overplaying his hand. It has already backfired and will get worse. (But everything sounded TERRIFIC today when Rush Limbaugh interviewed him. Well, except for the traitorous left and their enablers, "the media".....) Nunces is huckster who bets on the ignorance of most Americans - well at least, 30% - to push his schtick. He's Trump's 'mini-me'. The committee set up an agreement with the Justice Department that would allow just one person to review the documents. Nunes said he thought Gowdy would be the best choice because of his background as a federal prosecutor, and that Gowdy then shared his notes and observations with the rest of the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 17 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: The committee set up an agreement with the Justice Department that would allow just one person to review the documents. Nunes said he thought Gowdy would be the best choice because of his background as a federal prosecutor, and that Gowdy then shared his notes and observations with the rest of the members. None of that is relevant to my point. Excuses don't change the facts. This is Nunce's memo. And I don't see Trey Gowdy jumping up to defend Nunce. Just the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, homersapien said: None of that is relevant to my point. Excuses don't change the facts. This is Nunce's memo. And I don't see Trey Gowdy jumping up to defend Nunce. Just the opposite. Of course it's relevant. You said Nunes didn't read the source material. I showed you why he didn't. Just the opposite? So Gowdy is opposing Nunes and the release of the memo? Link please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said: Of course it's relevant. You said Nunes didn't read the source material. I showed you why he didn't. Just the opposite? So Gowdy is opposing Nunes and the release of the memo? Link please. Did not read the source material is a fact. Explaining why doesn't change that fact. No, Gowdy is backing away from the claims Nunce - and Trump - are making. And you know, rather than me posting all the links, may I suggest to search "Gowdy on Nunes memo" and see them for yourself. Geez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, homersapien said: Did not read the source material is a fact. Explaining why doesn't change that fact. No, Gowdy is backing away from the claims Nunce - and Trump - are making. And you know, rather than me posting all the links, may I suggest to search "Gowdy on Nunes memo" and see them for yourself. Geez... Of course it's a fact. I told you why. It was an agreement between the committee and the DOJ. You trying to move the goal post homes? The subject is #releasethememo. Try to stay on topic. Now I may have missed it, but I have not seen Gowdy say anything other than he supported doing so. If you have a link to the contrary, get to it and let us see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: Of course it's a fact. I told you why. It was an agreement between the committee and the DOJ. You trying to move the goal post homes? The subject is #releasethememo. Try to stay on topic. Now I may have missed it, but I have not seen Gowdy say anything other than he supported doing so. If you have a link to the contrary, get to it and let us see it. Stop replying like you are an idiot. Nunes did not read the source material. Fact. Again, search "Gowdy on Nunes memo". His opinion does not support Nunes - or Trump's - assertions regarding this memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, homersapien said: Stop replying like you are an idiot. Nunes did not read the source material. Fact. Again, search "Gowdy on Nunes memo". His opinion does not support Nunes - or Trump's - assertions regarding this memo. That's folks. #weasel No one is disputing he did not read the source material. Some ignorant partisans are trying to make it "a thing" when evidence supports the reason he didn't. It is called an agreement with the DOJ. Again, stop trying to move the goal post homes. The subject is #releasethememo. If Gowdy said anything other than he supported releasing the memo, get to it and let us see your proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: That's folks. #weasel No one is disputing he did not read the source material. Some ignorant partisans are trying to make it "a thing" when evidence supports the reason he didn't. It is called an agreement with the DOJ. Again, stop trying to move the goal post homes. The subject is #releasethememo. If Gowdy said anything other than he supported releasing the memo, get to it and let us see your proof. This is the downside of not being able to include the complete chain of posts that got us here. I am pretty sure you aren't that stupid, which leads me to conclude you are simply too much of a weasel for me to humor. But since I brought it up and you apparently don't have the curiosity to look: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/gowdy-trump-russia-memo.html Gowdy Emerges as Key Challenger to Trump on G.O.P. Russia Memo https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/politics/trey-gowdy-memo/index.html http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/372207-gowdy-memo-has-no-impact-on-russia-probe Gowdy: Memo has no impact on Russia probe https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/03/trey-gowdy-nunes-memo-russia-probe-389083 Gowdy: Nunes memo has no effect on Russia probe Hey, here's one from Fox! http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/03/trey-gowdy-fisa-memo-does-not-any-way-discredit-mueller-investigation Gowdy Disagrees With Trump: FISA Memo Does Not 'In Any Way' Discredit Mueller Investigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, homersapien said: This is the downside of not being able to include the complete chain of posts that got us here. I am pretty sure you aren't that stupid, which leads me to conclude you are simply too much of a weasel for me to humor. But since I brought it up and you apparently don't have the curiosity to look: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/gowdy-trump-russia-memo.html Gowdy Emerges as Key Challenger to Trump on G.O.P. Russia Memo https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/politics/trey-gowdy-memo/index.html http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/372207-gowdy-memo-has-no-impact-on-russia-probe Gowdy: Memo has no impact on Russia probe https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/03/trey-gowdy-nunes-memo-russia-probe-389083 Gowdy: Nunes memo has no effect on Russia probe Hey, here's one from Fox! http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/03/trey-gowdy-fisa-memo-does-not-any-way-discredit-mueller-investigation Gowdy Disagrees With Trump: FISA Memo Does Not 'In Any Way' Discredit Mueller Investigation What got us here is #releasethememo. Not that hard homes. What seems to be hard for you is to show where Gowdy and been anything other than of supportive of doing so. And you link something we aren't even discussing. This topic ain't about the Russia probe, so stop that nonsense. Get back on topic and give us the link where Gowdy disapproves releasing the memo. I've got to rise early tomorrow, so I'm off to bed. One last thing, read the damn OP. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: What got us here is #releasethememo. Not that hard homes. What seems to be hard for you is to show where Gowdy and been anything other than of supportive of doing so. And you link something we aren't even discussing. This topic ain't about the Russia probe, so stop that nonsense. Get back on topic and give us the link where Gowdy disapproves releasing the memo. I've got to rise early tomorrow, so I'm off to bed. One last thing, read the damn OP. Good grief. Go back and read my post. I said Gowdy - who actually read the subject material - does not agree with the claims Nunes (and Trump) are making. I said nothing about releasing the memo. My post was about the significance of said memo. I said or implied nothing about anyone's position on releasing it the first place. Thats your re-direction. You either have cognitive issues or you are a weasel. I am betting on the latter, but I could be wrong. Is "78" your age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 17 hours ago, homersapien said: Go back and read my post. I said Gowdy - who actually read the subject material - does not agree with the claims Nunes (and Trump) are making. I said nothing about releasing the memo. My post was about the significance of said memo. I said or implied nothing about anyone's position on releasing it the first place. Thats your re-direction. You either have cognitive issues or you are a weasel. I am betting on the latter, but I could be wrong. Is "78" your age? Didn't read the OP. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,428 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Please stop. You two are both splitting hairs here. 78: 78 is correct that Nunes didnt read the source material BY AGREEMENT WITH THE DOJ. IE Nothingburger... homer: Gowdy may not have wanted to stop the memo, but he has said consistently it means little IF ANYTHING. So 78 is also splitting hairs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 19 hours ago, AUFAN78 said: Didn't read the OP. Go figure. What's the OP got to do with what I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Criminal referral seems to support Nunes memo. Also videos found of Schiff talking to two Russians. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/criminal-referral-backs-up-nunes-on-dossier-claims-as-dems-push-rebuttal-memo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 4 hours ago, homersapien said: What's the OP got to do with what I said? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Thank you for asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,389 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 * ANOTHER ‘SCANDAL’ GOES ‘POOF’: Some Republicans say a September 2016 text between the FBI’s Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which said Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing,” shows Obama interfered in the FBI probe of Clinton. But the Wall Street Journal reports: Associates of Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page said that exchange referred to the president’s wanting information on Russia election meddling, which the FBI was heavily involved in over that period. … In August and September 2016, the FBI was no longer actively investigating the Clinton matter, after Mr. Comey had said that July that he was recommending no criminal charges be filed. There was no Clinton investigation at the time. The “scandal” is that Obama wanted information on Russian sabotage of our democracy, which Trump still sometimes says never happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/02/08/there-is-still-a-way-to-break-trumps-will/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0742b78e11e8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 A rather succinct video: http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-republican-fisa-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 LEAVING THE FBI & DOJ (IN THE NICK OF TIME?) http://hopelesslypartisan.com/leaving-the-fbi-doj-in-the-nick-of-time/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Trump has blocked the Dems memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, AUDub said: Trump has blocked the Dems memo. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: Why? Stated reason? Cited national security concerns. Actual reason? Well, did you really expect him to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 minute ago, AUDub said: Stated reason? Cited national security concerns. Actual reason? Well, did you really expect him to? To be honest, I did. With redaction's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said: To be honest, I did. With redaction's. What it would have looked like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.