This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

American traitors like Pkrbum are dedicated to destroying our American democracy.

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


It's good to know your enemies.

If there is an iota of reality in any of the so-called American defenders of truth, family values, and the American flag, traitors like Pkrbum must recognize that they are now members of a treasonous, smarmy conspiracy dedicated to the objective of transitioning the office of the President of the United States to the Office of the American Emperor, with only Trumpionites holding the reins of power -- forever.

Only genuine traitors who hate our democracy -- like Pkrbum -- and all those who condemn the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- would stoop to manipulating the truth in what has now been completely exposed as a weird, sick and thoroughly anti-American act.

Continuing to cite the Nunez memo as proof of bipartisanship by the FBI and the Justice Department, these traitors know very well that Carter Page was a long-term subject of FBI investigation and wiretapping, resulting from news obtained by them from an Australian diplomat who had been told by Trump-aide George Papadopoulis, that the Russians "had dirt" on Hillary Clinton -- LONG BEFORE the Steele Dossier was written by the former British spy.  

Those facts which, thanks to Nunez, are now apparent, show that Republican traitors have become members of a vivid conspiracy designed to sew distrust of our intelligence agencies, the FBI and our Justice system itself.  

Senator McCain has it right: in order to transition our presidency to a Nazi-like dictatorship, all those who pretend mock indignation while they purposefully disembowel our intelligence agencies, the FBI and our Justice Department, these hardcore traitors are indeed doing Putin's work -- destroying faith and trust in our core institutions.

There is considerable hard evidence now that Trump won the election because of Russian interference with our electoral process.  What has also become apparent, is that Putin's motivation had nothing to do with his alleged dislike of Hillary Clinton, or any supposed liking of candidate Trump.

No. Putin's one and only driving purpose in all this cyber attack on America was aimed at getting someone as psychologically and emotionally challenged as Trump in America's driver's seat.  Putin's goal was and is the diminishment of America's world influence by creating maximum chaos and distrust between the people of America and their political leaders and most important institutions.

Senator McCain has it right: the current foam-at-the-mouth insistence by all those who have traded their integrity and moral values in order to maintain the power of the Pussy Grabber with the dead rat on his head, is nothing less than a mad rush to accomplish Putin's goals.  

Traditionally, we've all come to believe that whether they were Republican or Democrat, our elected representatives in Washington DC were doing all they could to work together for the betterment of the American people.  It brings me no joy to recognize that our political system is no longer functional. Political bipartisanship has fully transitioned from political discourse within the framework of the Constitution, to outright political revolution.  

One party continues to fight while following many of the rules, while the other will do literally anything to win and maintain full political power.  

Our traditional bipartisanship has become a new revolutionary war. Folks like Pkrbum and his basket of deplorables -- led by Paul Ryan and Devin Nunez, are more than willing to destroy democracy in America in pursuit of unending, unopposed political dominance by any means.  

It's apparent that the Democrats -- who are still trying to operate within the rules -- look weak and ineffective when their most vociferous opponents have committed themselves to doing whatever's necessary to maintain their current power -- even if it brings on a constitutional crisis which could end our 242-year-old democracy.  

Putin is laughing. Are you?


Reality.

 

View user profile
Viva la FBI!

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:  ....
There is considerable hard evidence now that Trump won the election because of Russian interference with our electoral process.  


I disagree ... Trump won the election because a minority of Republican voters, (many of whom probably did not regularly vote in primaries), coalesced around him in a far overcrowded primary where the vote was split too many ways to get him the nomination with lower margins than Presidential primary candidates usually win .... and most of the rest of the Republican leaning voters fell in line as other candidates dropped out and ended up voting for him in the general election because, although they may have not cared too much for Trump:

*  Hillary was not liked by many because she was viewed as elitist, a know-it-all, and maternalistic .... characteristics a woman needs to be careful about displaying.   A man can win votes by projecting paternalism ... but voters don't want a nagging "Mom" as President.  It's a sad fact but women contenders for the political office have different challenges than men.

* Trump framed issues in simple terms and convinced people there were simple solutions by presenting a strong-man personality that was attractive to many people fed up with our Congress that can't seem to solve problems.   Trump framed himself as a candidate who would, in the words of a certain comedian "git 'er done!" .... that's a mentality that resonated with many.

*   Hlllary was viewed by many working-class whites as the candidate of minority groups, and urban and coastal "elites," who not only did not have the interests of working people in flyover country, but would actively work against them.

*  And finally ..... abortion

While I don't deny the Russians did some meddling in our election, I primarily blame the Republican and Democrat parties for Trump ... not the Russians.  Hopefully they (the parties, not the Russians  Laughing ) will give us better choices in 2020 ... but I'm not optimistic.

View user profile
Poor word... it's all so very confusing for him. I (again) never thght it possible that trump could win... never even took him seriously... certainly didn't and won't in '20 vote for him. Is it possible for you to get that?

It's funny tho that you assign altruistic traits to the doj and fbi while your hair is on fire over a "police state".

It simply proves that you are a hyper partisan... willing to bend your beliefs to promote your ideology.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Poor word... it's all so very confusing for him. I (again) never thght it possible that trump could win... never even took him seriously... certainly didn't and won't in '20 vote for him. Is it possible for you to get that?

It's funny tho that you assign altruistic traits to the doj and fbi while your hair is on fire over a "police state".

It simply proves that you are a hyper partisan... willing to bend your beliefs to promote your ideology.

No worries 'pkr' .... George Washington, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, all those guys: TRAITORS! So you're in good company with that label.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Poor word... it's all so very confusing for him. I (again) never thght it possible that trump could win... never even took him seriously... certainly didn't and won't in '20 vote for him. Is it possible for you to get that?

It's funny tho that you assign altruistic traits to the doj and fbi while your hair is on fire over a "police state".

It simply proves that you are a hyper partisan... willing to bend your beliefs to promote your ideology.

If you didn't vote for Drumpf, why the hell are you defending his every action?

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Poor word... it's all so very confusing for him. I (again) never thght it possible that trump could win... never even took him seriously... certainly didn't and won't in '20 vote for him. Is it possible for you to get that?

It's funny tho that you assign altruistic traits to the doj and fbi while your hair is on fire over a "police state".

It simply proves that you are a hyper partisan... willing to bend your beliefs to promote your ideology.

If you didn't vote for Drumpf, why the hell are you defending his every action?




It's the heavy doses of narcotics he imbibes.




View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Poor word... it's all so very confusing for him. I (again) never thght it possible that trump could win... never even took him seriously... certainly didn't and won't in '20 vote for him. Is it possible for you to get that?

It's funny tho that you assign altruistic traits to the doj and fbi while your hair is on fire over a "police state".

It simply proves that you are a hyper partisan... willing to bend your beliefs to promote your ideology.

If you didn't vote for Drumpf, why the hell are you defending his every action?

I'm shooting down leftist/statist dogma... and intellectual dishonesty.

That appears to be support from your vantage point.

The naming of a special prosecutor and an open path to the truth is what's supposed to happen. The left would never have supported this for gunrunning, benghazi, media wiretapping, irs targeting, Hillary email, uranium one, Clinton slushfund foundation... etc.

But it'll hopefully be the norm from now on. Sooo... good job on that.

View user profile
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5362821/FBI-lovers-texts-Obama-wanted-info-Clinton-email-probe.html#ixzz56XswIYVa

An FBI lawyer wrote in a newly revealed text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president Barack Obama wanted updates on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

View user profile
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/02/08/strassel-tweetstorm-grassley-memo-n2445871

In our analysis of the latter document last week, we wrote that a major question was how much the DOJ relied on the Steele dossier itself to gain a FISA warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page. According to Grassley/Graham, the answer is a lot. I posited that if investigators had used the unverified dossier as a starting point from which to chase down leads and produce more solid evidence to present to a FISA judge, that'd be one thing. But if they leaned heavily on Steele's file itself as the "evidence," that would be sketchier.

According to the two GOP Senators, the FBI did the latter. From AP's excellent summary (the relevant bits of the memo itself are here and here):

...“The bulk of the application” against Page was dossier material...“The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” In other words, they seem to have treated the dossier as evidence, not as a lead. That’s big news.

But that's not all. Grassley/Graham allege, based on intelligence, that the man behind the anti-Trump dossier was known to be unreliable by the FBI (they eventually severed ties with him) because he was caught lying either to US law enforcement or to British courts, telling each entity different stories about a key fact. Either way, FISA judges who approved and renewed the Page warrants weren't told about the proven unreliability of the foreign agent whose work product was (apparently) the central basis for said warrants. The FBI might counter that Steele seemed credible at first, then they dumped him when he burned them, but that doesn't mean their hands are clean, Allahpundit writes:

(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible...Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.

Two big points there: Even after the FBI recognized Steele was an established liar, his dishonesty was not disclosed to judges deciding whether to keep the warrants active during renewal applications, which were largely predicated on Steele's credibility. And the topic about which he apparently lied was whether he blabbed to folks in the media about his work, which could have opened up the floodgates for disinformation from shady characters eager to make the anti-Trump case as juicy and brimming with salaciousness as possible. That's where Blumenthal and company, whom I wrote about here, may have come in. What a mess. Also, speaking of not revealing pertinent information to the courts, it looks like Nunes was technically incorrect that the judges weren't made aware that the Steele dossier was paid political oppo research. But he was more broadly correct that the judges didn't have even close to the full picture of who was behind the unverified partisan document upon which they were primarily basing the surveillance of a US citizen -- who happened to be a former aide to a major presidential campaign from the out-of-power party.

"As Nunes himself later admitted, the Bureau apparently did disclose in a footnote that the material was paid political research. It just didn’t mention who, precisely, had paid for it," AP writes. The memo reads, "in footnote 8, the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm that had hired an "identified US person" -- now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS...the application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson's ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC." So the disclosure came in a footnote and didn't mention that the parties who paid for the unverified dossier were the Trump campaign's explicit opposition. Maybe there was no misconduct in any of this, but even as someone who believes neither that suspicion of Carter Page was unreasonable, nor that this is all part of a grand anti-Trump conspiracy (remember, the Trump angle of the Russia probe started earlier, for an unrelated reason), there's enough in the Grassley/Graham memo to make me uncomfortable with the standards by which Page was surveilled by the US government.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5362821/FBI-lovers-texts-Obama-wanted-info-Clinton-email-probe.html#ixzz56XswIYVa

An FBI lawyer wrote in a newly revealed text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president Barack Obama wanted updates on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

Of course Obama wanted info. He was the sitting President...the last real president we had. That's why presidents get intelligence briefings, (insert expletive), although the current resident of 1600 prefers to forego those in favor of the latest episode of Fox & Friends.

View user profile


Here's Guy Benson, author of the Townhall article. What is he...about 14? Besides being a Trumpie, he's also apparently a Fox Noise contributor...in other words, a liar...but then you knew that.

View user profile

And the little trope about everything being tied to the dossier is absolute BS. Carter Page was under investigation beginning in 2013. Papadopolous mouthed off to the Australian ambassador in a London pub in May, 2016. I'm sure there were other warnings as well from our allies.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/02/08/strassel-tweetstorm-grassley-memo-n2445871

In our analysis of the latter document last week, we wrote that a major question was how much the DOJ relied on the Steele dossier itself to gain a FISA warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.  According to Grassley/Graham, the answer is a lot.  I posited that if investigators had used the unverified dossier as a starting point from which to chase down leads and produce more solid evidence to present to a FISA judge, that'd be one thing.  But if they leaned heavily on Steele's file itself as the "evidence," that would be sketchier.

According to the two GOP Senators, the FBI did the latter.  From AP's excellent summary (the relevant bits of the memo itself are here and here):

...“The bulk of the application” against Page was dossier material...“The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” In other words, they seem to have treated the dossier as evidence, not as a lead. That’s big news.

But that's not all. Grassley/Graham allege, based on intelligence, that the man behind the anti-Trump dossier was known to be unreliable by the FBI (they eventually severed ties with him) because he was caught lying either to US law enforcement or to British courts, telling each entity different stories about a key fact. Either way, FISA judges who approved and renewed the Page warrants weren't told about the proven unreliability of the foreign agent whose work product was (apparently) the central basis for said warrants. The FBI might counter that Steele seemed credible at first, then they dumped him when he burned them, but that doesn't mean their hands are clean, Allahpundit writes:

(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible...Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.

Two big points there: Even after the FBI recognized Steele was an established liar, his dishonesty was not disclosed to judges deciding whether to keep the warrants active during renewal applications, which were largely predicated on Steele's credibility. And the topic about which he apparently lied was whether he blabbed to folks in the media about his work, which could have opened up the floodgates for disinformation from shady characters eager to make the anti-Trump case as juicy and brimming with salaciousness as possible. That's where Blumenthal and company, whom I wrote about here, may have come in. What a mess. Also, speaking of not revealing pertinent information to the courts, it looks like Nunes was technically incorrect that the judges weren't made aware that the Steele dossier was paid political oppo research. But he was more broadly correct that the judges didn't have even close to the full picture of who was behind the unverified partisan document upon which they were primarily basing the surveillance of a US citizen -- who happened to be a former aide to a major presidential campaign from the out-of-power party.

"As Nunes himself later admitted, the Bureau apparently did disclose in a footnote that the material was paid political research. It just didn’t mention who, precisely, had paid for it," AP writes.  The memo reads, "in footnote 8, the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm that had hired an "identified US person" -- now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS...the application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson's ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC."  So the disclosure came in a footnote and didn't mention that the parties who paid for the unverified dossier were the Trump campaign's explicit opposition.  Maybe there was no misconduct in any of this, but even as someone who believes neither that suspicion of Carter Page was unreasonable, nor that this is all part of a grand anti-Trump conspiracy (remember, the Trump angle of the Russia probe started earlier, for an unrelated reason), there's enough in the Grassley/Graham memo to make me uncomfortable with the standards by which Page was surveilled by the US government.

Thank you Pkrbum. Is loving you. Vladimir P.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:Thank you Pkrbum.  Is loving you. Vladimir P.  

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html

BERLIN — After months of secret negotiations, a shadowy Russian bilked American spies out of $100,000 last year, promising to deliver stolen National Security Agency cyberweapons in a deal that he insisted would also include compromising material on President Trump, according to American and European intelligence officials.

The cash, delivered in a suitcase to a Berlin hotel room in September, was intended as the first installment of a $1 million payout, according to American officials, the Russian and communications reviewed by The New York Times.

View user profile
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/372861-uranium-one-informant-makes-clinton-allegations-in-testimony

An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in a written statement that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.

The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton.

View user profile
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/10/hillary-clintons-fingerprints-fbis-investigation-trumps-russia-ties/

A significant part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s basis for investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties is looking more and more like a political hit job carried out by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Her campaign’s fingerprints are on at least three separate pieces of information fed to the FBI, including the Christopher Steele dossier Republicans say formed the basis of a secret warrant obtained to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

A former State Department official confirmed on the record Thursday that Clinton associates were funneling information to Steele as he was compiling a dossier commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC. That’s on top of the recent revelation that a top Department of Justice official fed the FBI information compiled by his wife, who was working for the firm Clinton and the DNC were paying to dig up dirt on Trump, Fusion GPS.

The dossier was quoted “extensively” in the FBI’s application to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

View user profile

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum