(01-30-2021 09:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you do not seem open-minded on the subject.

Who do you consider open-minded?

(I think I know, but I wanted to see you say it)

I think we are all open-minded on some issues. I don’t sense that Tanq or anyone else delving into this Cruz/AOC spat is very open-minded.

Tanq - I do not recall ever saying, writing, or otherwise endorsing that Cruz is the most evil person in the Senate. Not sure where you came up with that one.

I guess we have different definitions of "open minded".

Although I am in agreement with some left-wing issues/solutions, as are all the right-wingers here, I was thinking more of the likelihood of somebody either changing their mind, or being undecided but willing to hear arguments on both sides before committing.

I cannot remember the last time somebody here changed their position based on something another poster said.

So I think it is much closer to we are all NOT open minded.

Out of curiosity, what topics do you think I have been open minded about, since I am a part of "we...all".

I am trying to think of anybody who has changed their minds on anything. The only thing can think of is that it seems Numbers has changed his stance on the use of the word "slut" a tiny bit, whereas of course the people disagreeing with him have not changed one whit.

Present to me a cogent and intelligent argument why my position on some issue is wrong, and I will change it. So far, I see no reason to change on anything - taxes, climate change, BLM, RRR, Hunter, GND, whatever. Just telling me that I am stupid won't do the trick. Have a go.

This is what is behind my recent request for people to tell me what issues are their big issues. It occurred to me that perhaps the reason we make so little progress is that what some consider big issues are of little consequence to me. For example, these Paris accords that some think getting back into is important. WHY are they important. WHAT will they do? I don't see what good they will be in reaching an unannounced goal. Explain to me the what, why, and how.

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

So all the parts about Schiff were of no consequence to you? The lies, the fabrications, the perjured and/or bought testimony? No biggie, there is a crazy Republican to point to.

Schiff is at the top of my "smarmy" list. He is the worst. And he led the RRR conspiracy theory that Big apparently thinks didn't exist.

he is the author of the quote that the evidence is "lying there in plain sight on top of the table."

Difference, is, lots of Democrats copied and quoted him, lots of MSM had him on to testify, nobody left has censured him. All you guys got is Greene - and Schiff is XXX times worse, and not alone.

Worst case of 'whadaboutism" this board has ever seen.

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

(02-01-2021 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

So all the parts about Schiff were of no consequence to you? The lies, the fabrications, the perjured and/or bought testimony? No biggie, there is a crazy Republican to point to.

Schiff is at the top of my "smarmy" list. He is the worst. And he led the RRR conspiracy theory that Big apparently thinks didn't exist.

he is the author of the quote that the evidence is "lying there in plain sight on top of the table."

Difference, is, lots of Democrats copied and quoted him, lots of MSM had him on to testify, nobody left has censured him. All you guys got is Greene - and Schiff is XXX times worse, and not alone.

Worst case of 'whadaboutism" this board has ever seen.

I'm assuming you're referring to Tomball's comparison of Hank Johnson to Marjorie Taylor Greene? I'm glad we can find some common ground on this.

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

We should be clear that an editorial from the WSJ editorial board is not a smoking gun defeat of the Russia investigation. The Mueller report provided sufficient evidence to make it clear an investigation was warranted.

(02-01-2021 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

We should be clear that an editorial from the WSJ editorial board is not a smoking gun defeat of the Russia investigation. The Mueller report provided sufficient evidence to make it clear an investigation was warranted.

Tell that to Carter Page, why doncha.....

(02-01-2021 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We should be clear that an editorial from the WSJ editorial board is not a smoking gun defeat of the Russia investigation. The Mueller report provided sufficient evidence to make it clear an investigation was warranted.

Big asked for something from the WSJ describing the RRR conspiracy theory. I think, or should I say “we should be clear”, the referenced WSJ link does that.

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

(02-01-2021 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

We should be clear that an editorial from the WSJ editorial board is not a smoking gun defeat of the Russia investigation. The Mueller report provided sufficient evidence to make it clear an investigation was warranted.

And what evidence was that? Are you back to your "smoke" theory?

Pelosi equates Republicans with Qanan

Something we are seeing here to some extent.

"The more that the mainstream media continues to come out and say that all Republicans are birthers and crazy people and we believe in space lasers, then the more it makes traditional Republicans — and there's still a lot of them in the country — go back in their corners," The View host Meghan McCain said Monday. "I would argue this is how we got Trump in the first place."

"Pelosi is far from alone in using Greene in order to target other Republicans."

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  What is the "Russia, Russia, Russia" conspiracy theory? Please provide links describing it, preferably from sources folks around here accept as "not too biased" like BBC and WSJ. Also, so things are on the level, try to find some links describing where adherents to this conspiracy theory believe that prominent politicians should be executed for their actions. Thanks and happy hunting!

Also, no thoughts on QAnon? OK with you that a republican congresswoman is an adherent? She also believes a space laser from a Jewish-owned company might have started the forest fires in California and that the shootings at both Parkland and Sandy Hook might have been false flag events. She now sits on the House education committee. That cool? Or would you rather dig up some more what aboutisms and both sidisms?

Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

I refer you to post #268, where one of "you guys" defends it.

(02-01-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 01:22 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Come on man. You are better than that.

Have you totally cancelled your memory of the last 4 years? Google Adam Schiff as a start. Or try the Muller report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ada...1589326164

In case you can't open the link...

"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.”

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy— Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report.

He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Yes there are folks of questionable rationality on both sides. Remember this guy? Eight term Democratic congressman. Committee assignments - Transportation & Infrastructure; House Judiciary

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnso...e-buildup/

CBS News "not too biased" enough for you?

Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Oh come on... you can't compare this guy to Greene. He said something dumb but then explained he was talking figuratively. If we are going to say politicians are crazy every time a dumb thing comes out of their mouths then we won't have many sane ones to lean on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnKtzQpCSs


Greene has a complete wackjob philosophy that tests the limits of sanity.

I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

(02-01-2021 06:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Pelosi equates Republicans with Qanan

Something we are seeing here to some extent.

You guys constantly equate far-lefters like AOC with all Democrats.

As to what you referenced happening on the board I will again point out the quote from my first post on this matter:

"That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so)."

Quote:"The more that the mainstream media continues to come out and say that all Republicans are birthers and crazy people and we believe in space lasers, then the more it makes traditional Republicans — and there's still a lot of them in the country — go back in their corners," The View host Meghan McCain said Monday. "I would argue this is how we got Trump in the first place."

"Pelosi is far from alone in using Greene in order to target other Republicans."

I don't know what it means that they are using Greene to "target" other R's.
So when a bats*** crazy politician makes the news for being bats*** crazy we shouldn't comment on it in case we are seen as brushing their entire party as bats*** crazy?

On this board Qanon was only linked with the Republican party when right-wingers here claimed unfamiliarity with Qanon and suggested the possibility that they were as likely to be left-wingers as they were right-wingers.

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I dunno. Have you tested the stuff that led to the RRR investigation? I think that is insane - yet you guys keep defending it and even quoting it.

I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I do? Remind me where I have done that. I don't think that I have.

So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So are you in agreement with me that the RRR theory was complete and utter rot, and the ensuing investigation was also balderdash? If not, tell me what parts you think are sensible. If so, say so.

and by "you guys", I mean the Democratic left. That includes but is not limited to, Schiff, and Pelosi, and Waters, and AOC, and most of the other Democrats, and the MSM, and on this board, Lad.

Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.