Obamagate is coming, "Will be worse than Watergate"

If that is what you were insisting, try not to sulk about the past.

Haven't you heard that the current diversion from Trump's plight is to claim that "Obamagate" will be worse than "Watergate"?

Ooooo.

 

Sulking about your alleged diversion? Got it.

 

Sure. But you seem to be ignoring the point I'm making: do you believe midterm elections (as well as the president's party retaining the White House after two terms) is – by far – the most accurate measurement of a president's 'popularity'?

You used the term, I'm simply helping you define it...

 

So, how's the "Release the memo!" conspiracy going today? A total failure? Completely forgotten, exactly as the normal people predicted? What a shame. Maybe that will get you to understand that you were suckered again.

Nope, no such luck. You explain the failure of your previous conspiracy theory by tacking on another conspiracy theory. And when that one fails, you'll add a new conspiracy theory. There's literally no evidence that could cause you to conclude your conspiracy theory is wrong, which puts it in the category of a religious belief.

No, because I already understand why your political cult makes these stories up, and why you're so eager to believe them.

 

Still there; a few congressmen gave interviews today about the Intelligence Committee voting on releasing the memo; apparently, they are going to use a vague law that allows them to do so.

You are not aware of this?

You are misquoting me re Strzok, I noticed the quote is not attributed to anyone; not sure if you simply made it up or are confused.

I never said he was charged, as he was removed from the Mueller task force for bias and malfeasance.

Today, it was reported that an additional couple thousand emails between Strozk and Page under subpoena disappeared.

You are not aware of this?

Nothing made up; why are so many leftists so hesitant to leave their echo chamber?

You realize you seem quite uninformed? Are you truly not aware of the events of the day?

Just curious, how do you consume your news? This information I cited is readily available, even from some sources strident leftists consider moderate...

 

Obamagate is coming, "Will be worse than Watergate"
Another desperate Trumpet delusion.....
...

 

So, they're talking about releasing it, but not releasing it.

I'm quite aware they were talking about releasing it, but not actually releasing it.

The don't need vague laws. Trump can declassify it simply by saying it's declassified. Or congress can talk about it, regardless of classification, because they are legally shielded from any punishment for doing so. You're telling us that the Republicans have the power to save America and send all top Democrats to jail, but they're holding back for no reason at all. Your conspiracy makes no sense internally. When have the Republicans ever passed on a chance to go full metal Stalinist and send opponents to the Gulag?

Direct sources only, the opposite of your conspiracy hunting.

Yes, like the conspiracy website in your OP.

 

I think a feller could step in a mud puddle these days and we'd be calling it stepping in a mud puddle gate.

Everything's a *gate now. lol.

 

No, just put him in jail.

 

That's because language is dynamic. ****gate means the same thing that "political scandal" did back when watergate was a political scandal.

It's a lot like "racist". At one time, being a racist had one meaning, but then the SJWs changed it to mean anybody who isn't an SJW.

That's why nobody cares about being called racist anymore.

 

So when it is released, and happens to have explosive information about how Obama officials, the FBI and Department of Justice lied to the FISC court to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, will you accompany those on the right who wish to see these officials prosecuted?

Or, as many leftists do, will you simply dismiss it as 'partisan'?

I realize we have to wait, so we can revisit this when the times comes.

Interesting, here's a "direct" source:

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday announced the Justice Department will investigate missing text messages sent between two FBI agents critical of President Trump, joining the chorus of Republican lawmakers who are eager to recover the exchange."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-leave-no-stone-unturned-to-find-why-fbi-text

Of course, this is if you believe The Hill is a "direct source." What does that mean?

And, let's talk about what you skipped in my prior posts in which you replied:

–Why did you misquote me re Strzok?

–No comment on senior FBI agent Andrew McCabe, whose wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally, failing to recuse himself from the Hillary email investigation until one week before the election?:

"Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...dal-investigation-week-presidential-election/

And I realize you'll call Judicial Watch a right wing organization; but, these records DO exist. We just can't expect the New York Times or Washington Post to report them, as it doesn't follow the narrative set by the Democratic Party operatives who pose as journalists at those leftwing sites.

–Are you familiar with Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Justin Cooper, Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby, and what their roles were in the Russian/Fusion GPS investigation?

–How about the change in unmasking rules approved by Obama, prior to Susan Rice and Samantha Powers unmasking dozens of American citizens under the pretext of investigating foreign influence in the campaign?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...tude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

At the time the New York Times reported this, they played it off as Obama simply expanding the ability of intelligence agencies to snoop on Americans. Since then, of course, we know Susan Rice and Samantha Powers used these revisions to 'unmask Trump campaign officials and allow the FBI and Department of Justice to spy on them:

"Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/polit...stigators-unmasked-trump-officials/index.html

Again, aren't you just a wee bit curious? Doesn't it disturb you that Rice unmasked so many political opponents under what we now know was simply a pretext?

*If the administrations were reversed with the Trump campaign doing this in 2019 against whoever will run against him, do you deny you and other leftists would be calling for a massive investigation?* Please, be honest in your response.

Also, I purposely used left-leaning news sites with CNN and the NY Times in my links, so I'm sure you are aware of these ongoing issues?

Or were you not aware?

I'm quite hopeful you'll discuss this, as so many liberals/progressives/socialists here haven't progressed beyond the 'you suck' strategy of debate...

 

Actually, I'll point out that a "When pigs fly, will you ..." question is a mark of desperation, an attempt to push propaganda in the form of a question. You're a master of such sleaze.

Yes, let's talk about that. Why are you telling that lie? I was being kind to you by giving your big whopper there a free pass, but since you insist on repeating the lie, let's talk about it.

Trimming a post is not misquoting. I did not alter the text, I did not alter the meaning, therefore it is not a misquote. Get over yourself. Nobody is obligated to respond to your nonsense word by word. I just chopped almost the whole thing off because it was meaningless.

So, do you have no regrets over that lie? If not, there's no point in further conversation.

 

I'll be sure to follow up, regardless of what occurs. One of us will certainly be laughing at the other.

Oh my. Not sure if you're mixed up or purposely ignorant. You certainly didn't address this.

Here is my quote which you shortened:

"FBI Agent Peter Strzok changed the final Hillary Clinton email investigation wording in order to ensure the wording would not match the definition of the crime in federal statutes? No wonder she wasn't charged with anything, with the FBI making a concerted effort to ensure she wasn't charged."

You are aware Strzok was the lead agent who changed Comey's wording on the final draft of his report exonerating Hillary?

He changed the wording "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless;" "grossly negligent" is part of the federal statute Hillary would have been charged with.

From CNN in December:

"A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

Perhaps you're new at this quoting thing?

Anyway, it appears that you really, truly aren't going to move past the liberal/progressive/socialist debate method of sticking your head in the stand, placing your fingers in your ears and repeating, "It's not true, it's not true," in order to avoid issues that make you uncomfortable.

(Not all leftists here, of course.)

You never did answer what you consider 'sourced' news. Would this be "journalists" from the New York Times sourcing someone who is trying to sway the news? Of course, this is why these Democratic Party activists posing as reporters do so.

But I did provide plenty of info from what leftists consider mainstream sources. But I'm guessing since they don't agree with your worldview you will discard these 'sources,' as you say, and continue to chill out in your echo chamber.

I'd say your loss, but I've most found liberals/progressives/socialists truly are not interested in virtually anything that doesn't bolster the propaganda they hear from Team Blue...

 

They have gone through IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate, uranium-gate, elementary-school-song-gate (bet you don't even remember that one... but it was huge), death-panel-gate, birth-certificate-gate, geronimo-gate ... and on and on and on...

Each and every one of them closed, forgotten, dead almost as quickly as they were fabricated.

And you guys still don't realize that you are being taken for fools by the right-wingnuts?

 

~~~~
Well written. I agree with you and wonder if any of the culprits like Obama, Clinton, Holder, Lynch Mueller, Comey and the rest at the head of this conspiracy will ever be brought to justice. Oh, there's no doubt that the some lesser participants involved in the weaponization of government against the people will ultimately go to jail. It's those people at the top that need to pay. Will it happen under the leadership of Donald Trump? I hope so....

 

~~~~
No convict him of sedition and the attempted coup d'etat.

 

Woohooo...

You ought to be a screenwriter

Jesus

 

Totally..

Obama will probably be already strapped to the Lethal Injection Gurney before you read this post.

"Obamagate".

 

Have you heard anything about "when"?

 

Flynn was lawfully recorded.

Those who lie and say he was not are in obstruction of lawful investigations.

 

Flynn was recorded by the NSA. Mining for the recording is what may be illegal.

 

FIrst, I doubt that you understand any of it. Whether it is "lawful" or not, what "recorded" means, or you assertion about obstruction. I suggest that your assertion is just a warmed over version of someone else's opinion that you couldn't differentiate from fact.

 

I am unaware that "storage" of that conversation is illegal. Please elaborate

Please show proof of "leaking"

What are you talking about with "collusion with the Russian Ambassador"?

 

You just said...nothing.

Wanna try again?

 

I've noticed most of the 'thoughts' you post here are no more than a brief, two-sentence parroting of a liberal/progressive/socialist bumper sticker-type slogan you agree with, or a one or two-sentence post with the rolling laughing icon for those posts you disagree with.

But ultimately, no debate, as well as no apparent knowledge of current events on your part.

I never place anyone on ignore, as even the most ignorant, obnoxious person at times might have something valuable to say. So I'll provide the opportunity to you:

From CNN in December:

"A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

What do you think of this?

Does it provide any credence to those of us who believe the fix was in on this investigation from the beginning? Or was it, perhaps, not reverent to the outcome of the investigation?

Or, are you even aware of this? I've sadly found that many of the leftist members here are quite ignorant of what is occurring in the world outside their echo chamber.

I'm really hoping you are up to a discussion...