New Durham report criticizes the FBI for investigating Dear Leader…

Hillary was right.

 

You being obtuse on purpose?

 

Lol! That's the best you have? Trump's NSA's wording in a letter, which doesn't even claim that Clinton's claims were false or that any of them knew it was false? Which isn't even an actual finding of the report?

 

Playing dumb isn't a good look, even for you.

 

The Trump campaign clearly colluded withe the Russians, Mueller found a lot of it. What he did not find was sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge them.

 

Okay, so in conclusion, I asked for a quote from the report that backs your claim that, and I will quote you here, "We have the report showing the FBI, the Clinton campaign and the Obama Admin knew this was garbage from the get go." In response, you provided a picture of a tweet from a Freedom Caucus guy also saying what you said. Then, you provided a quote from John Ratcliffe, Trump NSA, which didn't even say that anybody knew anything was false. And now you are trying to avoid that set of facts.

 

Being purposely obtuse seems easy for you I guess. Let's see if I can dumb it down for you. If a work colleague came to me to say he is trying to "stir up a scandal" claiming improprieties of a competitor I would immediately question why this person is making up crap.

Maybe you just don't understand what "stir up a scandal" means. My bad.

 

People keep bringing up Hillary. The three Hillary quotes (she repeated them often) that I remember, dating back to the Clinton crime spree of the 20th century, are "I don't know," "I don't remember," and "I wasn't there." As for someone colluding with the Russians, I wouldn't doubt that FBI director James Comey did (he was colluding with somebody) when he reopened the investigation into Hillary's emails on the eve of the election, assuring her defeat. I also wonder why Comey never wound up on the Clinton Body Count.

 

Hillary was right.

 

Haha! It should be noted at this point that the language that you are hanging this whole thing on is not from anything related to Clinton or Obama, but is rather the interpretation of John Ratcliffe, the NSA of the guy you totally aren't rushing here to defend or anything. Nothing in the primary documents uses that language. Nor is there any indication that any of them knew something was false.

This is the perfect example of an echo chamber. Ratcliffe uses language that is suggestive of something false (but not itself false as it doesn't actually claim anything false- Clinton's campaign did want to use Trump's campaign's ties to Russia, which have been demonstrated, to hurt him). Then, Durham quotes that language. Then, you use that language to claim something not in evidence. Perfect example of the functioning of an echo chamber.

 

LOL. She knew it was made up. Other shit trump did was bad. I wish he was indicted and put in jail just so I wouldn't have to not vote for him a 3rd time. He's a crook and a terrible person, still doesn't give hilary the right to knowingly drum up false info on her opponent.

 

Playing dumb still. Terrible defense strategy, even for you.

 

I am sorry that your defense of Trump didn't go the way you were picturing it going. But, as I stated initially, there is nothing in the report saying that any of those folks knew the claims were inaccurate. And you are yet to actually show anything saying that (just your interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation).

 

No reason to try and have a rational discussion with any of the chronic on here. If you are pushing anything their facts that they found from their highly trusted sources doesn't match their thoughts, then you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what source you cite, if it isn't on the approved list, is an obvious fabrication. The other thing I have learned here is you can't make any assumptions or connect any dots that may be damaging to Dems. But if it is derogatory for the right, hell connect whatever you want and they will jump right in.
For such a group of people that think they are so intelligent and enlightened, they are really....
Oh, never mind it doesn't make a difference.

 

Really classic that you used "just your interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation" because that is basically what the entire Russian hoax was founded on!!!

 

You already used "hoax." You need "lock her up" for that guy you totally don't like but feel compelled to defend anytime he is investigated bingo. It is wordier than Trump bingo, but I'm just trying to be fair.

And no, that type of evidence isn't allowed in a court room, where Mueller was racking up convictions. Probably why Durham didn't though.

 

1. Are you denying that Paul Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik?
2. Are you denying that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer to try and get damaging information on Hillary Clinton?