Trump contradicts Pompeo, plays down alleged Russian role in cyberattack

[Bettie Page 118]

Even Bill Barr has said it, but many hear will cling to the belief that no, it must be true! Because those are their feelings and it makes them feel warm and happy.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

54 minutes ago, moxy said:

I absolutely have never said anyone here is lying. I have said sources are bogus, I have said people are factually incorrect, I have said people are promoting a false narrative. I don't accuse people of lying specifically because I try to give peole the benefit of the doubt that they are just mislead, rather than pushing false theories they know to be untrue.

 

I have, however, accused one person of being a humbug, but that person has been dead for 150 years. In any case, my apologies to the Johnson descendants for the possibly accurate but nonetheless vile besmirchment of their ancestor.

 

In any case, Obama didn't spy on the Trump campaign. I just googled it for you, here's the top from hit: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/first-presidential-debate-trump-biden-n1241282/ncrd1241514#blogHeader

Make sure to tell Clinesmith that you Google'd it and that the Obama admin never spied on the Trump team. He'd be glad to hear it.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Make sure to tell Clinesmith that you Google'd it and that the Obama admin never spied on the Trump team. He'd be glad to hear it.

You did it man. You blew the whole thing wide open. Kudos, that's like Medal of Freedom stuff. Obama indictments should be coming aaaany... any.... um...

 

Hey, why is it that neither Obama nor his administration has been indicted by the Trump appointed Attorney General? Why is it that the Trump appointed Attorney General has actually said the evidence is not there?

 

I mean clearly the Clinesmith alteration proves conclusively that there was an Obama conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign.

 

And yet the Trump appointed Attorney General is the one guy standing in the way of putting Obama behind bars. On the one hand I have this guy on the internet saying Obama spied on the Trump campaign, and on the other I have the Attorney General who was appointed by the very guy that was supposedly the victim here saying there's no evidence to prosecute on.

 

Anyway, I Alta Vista'd it too, and got the same result. I Asked Jeeves, I Lycos'd and I even Dogpiled It. (I did not Bing it, admittedly, because even I have a certain set of minimum standards) Same results. This thing goes deep.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, moxy said:

I mean clearly the Clinesmith alteration proves conclusively that there was an Obama conspiracy to spy on the Trump campaign.

What was the document he altered ("doctored") for? 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

8 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What was the document he was altering for? 

He altered an email the FBI was relying on to seek a judge's warrant to surveil the Trump campaign.

 

What he did was wrong. He sowed distrust in the FBI as an institution, and anyone who makes excuses for his behavior is a hack. He will go to federal prison for his crime.

 

Now answer mine. Why isn't the Trump appointed Attorney General prosecuting the Obama administration and/or former President Obama for spying on the Trump campaign? And bonus question if you're feeling pert, what named pushpins does the string leading from Clinesmith to Obama intersect through?

Edited December 20, 2020 by moxy

[Chauncey 138]

If he was a Russian asset then why have three consulates in Russia now closed under his administration?

[moxy 1,051]

Chauncy, I can tell you're not a man who was born yesterday. But you *were* born 6 minutes ago, and I'm honored to be quoted in your very first post. Welcome to VJ.

 

You asked if Trump really were a Russian puppet, why were three consulates closed? I thought it was only two, but maybe three, hard for me to count without my socks off. I don't have a good answer for that, but it could be for a large number of things. I don't remember the actual reason given, I think it was a move because we were mad they did something? I don't remember. In any case, it neither proves or disproves much.

Edited December 21, 2020 by moxy

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

57 minutes ago, moxy said:

He altered an email the FBI was relying on to seek a judge's warrant to surveil the Trump campaign.

 

What he did was wrong. He sowed distrust in the FBI as an institution, and anyone who makes excuses for his behavior is a hack. He will go to federal prison for his crime.

Clinesmith didn't do all of this on his own.

 

57 minutes ago, moxy said:

Now answer mine. Why isn't the Trump appointed Attorney General prosecuting the Obama administration and/or former President Obama for spying on the Trump campaign?

Ask Barr and/or Durham. I'm not them. However, I did predict nothing would happen and explained why.

 

57 minutes ago, moxy said:

And bonus question if you're feeling pert, what named pushpins does the string leading from Clinesmith to Obama intersect through?

His boss. All in the same room running counterintel ops on the Trump team when they were supposed to be "peacefully transitioning".

[moxy 1,051]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Clinesmith didn't do all of this on his own.

 

Ask Barr and/or Durham. I'm not them. However, I did predict nothing would happen and explained why.

 

His boss. All in the same room running counterintel ops on the Trump team when they were supposed to be "peacefully transitioning".

Ok. So... conjecture. You have one guy that did a bad thing, and the evidence led you to conclude--with no further evidence--that it was a conspiracy that went all the way to the top.

 

The problem isn't that you're drawing this conclusion. The problem is that this is the only conclusion you're drawing. Maybe it was an Obama conspiracy. Or maybe it was some faction within the FBI. Or The Illuminati. No evidence supports any of these conclusions, but maybe it was. If evidence surfaced that made the conclusion, I'd want action taken. The point is, there are many other conclusion you could draw, but you've chosen to plant your flag on this one, and calling it factual.

 

If you are drawing definite conclusions based on one event or piece of evidence, drawing lines from that one point all the way to the very top, that's the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

 

[Dashinka 23,382]

20 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Clinesmith didn't do all of this on his own.

 

Ask Barr and/or Durham. I'm not them. However, I did predict nothing would happen and explained why.

 

His boss. All in the same room running counterintel ops on the Trump team when they were supposed to be "peacefully transitioning".

January 5th, 2017 seems to ring a bell.

[Dashinka 23,382]

10 minutes ago, moxy said:

Ok. So... conjecture. You have one guy that did a bad thing, and the evidence led you to conclude--with no further evidence--that it was a conspiracy that went all the way to the top.

 

The problem isn't that you're drawing this conclusion. The problem is that this is the only conclusion you're drawing. Maybe it was an Obama conspiracy. Or maybe it was some faction within the FBI. Or The Illuminati. No evidence supports any of these conclusions, but maybe it was. If evidence surfaced that made the conclusion, I'd want action taken. The point is, there are many other conclusion you could draw, but you've chosen to plant your flag on this one, and calling it factual.

 

If you are drawing definite conclusions based on one event or piece of evidence, drawing lines from that one point all the way to the very top, that's the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

 

Since the trust in these Federal agencies has been severely degraded based on what we do know, and the potential of anyone actually being held to account for it, all we are left with is conclusions based upon the court of public opinion.  Much like the high profile investigation run in 2016 where a high profile person handled sensitive information poorly, where others have been prosecuted for essentially the same thing, and that high profile person being let off, DC is a swamp of career politicians and bureaucrats, but luckily we have voted in a new person with impeccable credentials and no DC/political skeletons.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Dashinka

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, moxy said:

Ok. So... conjecture. You have one guy that did a bad thing, and the evidence led you to conclude--with no further evidence--that it was a conspiracy that went all the way to the top.

 

The problem isn't that you're drawing this conclusion. The problem is that this is the only conclusion you're drawing. Maybe it was an Obama conspiracy. Or maybe it was some faction within the FBI. Or The Illuminati. No evidence supports any of these conclusions, but maybe it was. If evidence surfaced that made the conclusion, I'd want action taken. The point is, there are many other conclusion you could draw, but you've chosen to plant your flag on this one, and calling it factual.

 

If you are drawing definite conclusions based on one event or piece of evidence, drawing lines from that one point all the way to the very top, that's the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

 

What conclusion(s) are you disputing? I just see "this" and nothing else.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Since the trust in these Federal agencies has been severely degraded based on what we do know, and the potential of anyone actually being held to account for it, all we are left with is conclusions based upon the court of public opinion.  Much like the high profile investigation run in 2016 where a high profile person handled sensitive information poorly, where others have been prosecuted for essentially the same thing, and that high profile person being let off, DC is a swamp of career politicians and bureaucrats, but luckily we have voted in a new person with impeccable credentials and no DC/political skeletons.

Fine. Just don't preach it as fact. Because if all you're going on is opinion, you can't in good faith say it's factual.

 

I have no faith in my local city government. They've been doing some dumb things lately. But I'm not going to go around saying they govern badly, therefore I believe they are satan worshiping necrophiliacs. "But moxy, you can't say that without evidence!" "Dude, wake up. They passed a terrible property tax bill, this thing literally goes all the way to the morgue!"

[moxy 1,051]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What conclusion(s) are you disputing? I just see "this" and nothing else.

One of the symptoms of arguing in bad faith is when you parse the other person's reply down to the very last punctuation mark, looking for ways to trip them up or be able to take them out of context. Not because the other person's argument is meritless, but because taking the time to actually respond with a well thought out argument is harder.

 

That's what you're doing in the quoted comment. It's a logical fallacy called logic chopping. Happy to discuss the issue, but I'm not playing for internet points.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, moxy said:

One of the symptoms of arguing in bad faith is when you parse the other person's reply down to the very last punctuation mark, looking for ways to trip them up or be able to take them out of context. Not because the other person's argument is meritless, but because taking the time to actually respond with a well thought out argument is harder.

 

That's what you're doing in the quoted comment. It's a logical fallacy called logic chopping. Happy to discuss the issue, but I'm not playing for internet points.