DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Hamma begins to fall on the Deep State

I said the Hamma BEGINS to Fall with the IG Report and it has.

The dirty deeds have begun to be exposed and so far everyone is claiming stupidity is to blame.

Now the Criminal Investigation by Durham will seal the deal.

If you wish to wait till then to admit you are wrong, I will be nice and wait. It is the Christmas season after all.

People thought the Mueller report was going to resolve a lot of issues as well. How did that work out?

It ended up with butt hurt being MORE butt hurt.

It ended up being so bad - Barr had to go out and lie in front of the world about it's contents so that the narrative was changed.

It also ended with the butt hurt being so hurt their candidate didn't win, that even before the inauguration one side was all about impeaching.

See, 1 side started with the result of impeachment and has stopped at nothing to find some reason, somewhere, somehow, to get the result they wanted.

It's fine. Being impeached is the result they WERE going to get, regardless. Katie bar the door. Damn the torpedos. It was stated numerous times, by several dems.

We'll see how it all ends up. Might be good for the dems, might be bad for them. (side note: This is the first time a person that has been impeached, and found guilty, has been able to vote on impeachment. Guy's name eludes me at this time. A judge, I want to say from the south, was impeached but was allowed to run for office in a different position, and he became a representative. Just an off fact.)

You keep saying these things - as does 40 - about how we hate Trump or wanted him impeached before he even started ... how we didn't accept Trump winning or him as POTUS.

It's just not true.

Yes - there are / were some morons and mentally fragile people out there that wailed and gnashed their teeth that Trump was elected. But while I never liked him or his rhetoric - I accepted him as POTUS the moment the election was called. Just like the overwhelming majority of democrats and the overwhelming majority of GOPers didn't want Trump as POTUS.

Clinging to the reaction of a few crazies - and regurgitating it to try to deflect or nullify genuine concerns about Trump and his actions while in power are weak. It's deflection and it is intended - from what I can see - to prevent the facts at hand being addressed.

Here's a brief summary on the two big issues surrounding Trump:

1 - Russian interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller Report. Wholly justified. Many people (and many close to Trump) now in prison as a result of said investigation. Investigation paid for itself with the monies from Manafort. . . . . people still claim this was some sort of witch hunt or fake investigation. It was not. It cleared Trump of colluding with the Russians to impact the election - but it also spelled out clearly the multiple times Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice.

2 - The impeachment. We have evidence that is irrefutable. Trump stalled funds appropriated to Ukraine for it's defense vs Russia. He did it because he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election interference. BOTH issues were debunked multiple times. Trump had Giuliani running around as his unofficial foreign policy handler ... Trump directing Ukraine official to Giuliani. We have multiple first hand accounts of how messed up the whole situation was. . . Funds were only released after the whistle-blower was known about. . . . coercion and bribery are worthy of impeachment - doing it to undermine a political opponent just adds to the level of filth.

it aint that hard.

Oddly, unbeknownst to you, I believe your post backs up my post. Thanks.

Nah, it's a fact. Perhaps not all libs/dems, but most. Even on here. Several posters on here - ad nauseum - have been posting weekly, for YEARS, if not more often about just such a thing.

Maxine Waters, and many others have made it their life goal to impeach. Fact.

As to your point 2: irrefutable>? Please.

Point 1: There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump.

Hey, you will get your wish: impeachment in the house. Congrats on that. It will make the libs/dems all giddy.

It may even affect the next election. POssibly in a way the libs/dems won't like. POSSIBLY.

We'll find out soon enough I guess.

Unknown whistle blower: I have an unknown whistle blower that tells me a lot about some people on here. I've convened a court that has had people testify that the unknown person is correct, even though they weren't privvy to any info. You, as well as others, are guilty.

Hey, it's all a dog and pony show. Take your pick on the dog, or the pony.

So glad you know the inner thoughts of most Dems. That's a hell of a claim.

There's nothing to be glad about.

A lot of us just want justice served for over 10 instances of obstruction of justice, attempts to collude with a foreign government, using personal servers for confidential files, and withholding financial assistance in a highly illegal manner.

I mean if you're okay with not allowing American people to have justice for any of those acts, that's your bag. I know what bag I carry.

Please share.

If he drops uranium one imma die lmfao

Uranium 1 and Pizzagate ... and all those hit jobs.... all true.

Cool.

But, he wasn't charged with any of that.

https://news.yahoo.com/houses-passes-two-articles-impeachment-015433020.html



And this? Yup. You nailed hillary and biden.

And where is the proof of Hilary colluding with Russia. That was your claim right.

Some Dems wanted to impeach Trumo from the moment he was elected
Some Repubs wantd to impeach Obama from the timehe was elected

The difference is that Trump did something (multiple things) that are impeachable
Had Obama done the same thing or something else impeachable, he most certainly would have been impeached

Ok, If she did it, She also should face action for it.
The repubs had all 3 levels of government for 2 years.
Same with Bidens-If it was such a big deal. Should have done something about it

They know too much about the bodies in other people's closets. Probably helped put them there.

Trump fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, is an outsider. He hasn't had time to build up leverage to hold over people. It's why he was trying to skirt the rules to get some. Nothing like mutually assured destruction to keep business going as usual in DC.

The IG report has proven that the Trump administration was lying about spygate.

It has proven that the beginning of the investigation had NOTHING to do with the Steele dossier. Yet another popular lie spread by Trump and his cronies. Some posters on this board as well.

It has proven there was no bias as to why the investigation was started.

Most every lie spread by Trump, his followers and his loyal disinformation squad on this board was debunked.

Now you're making some wild claim, "There's more proof about hillary colluding with the russians than trump."

You may want to double check your sources. If they're the same ones you used to claim the Trump was investigated because of the Steele dossier, I would have thought you would have learned your lesson by now.

And I think that the point it was "some dems" is very important here.

What they don't wish to discuss is that a large majority of the Dems in the House didn't promote impeachment for a very long time. As late as July of this year they voted down an attempt to impeach Trump. Nancy Pelosi was against it too.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791

They blame the Dems for going after Trump for three years, yet the Mueller investigation was initiated by a Trump appointee, not a Democrat.

There were some Dems on the fringe that have wanted to impeach him all along. But it's not this sweeping majority that represents the party they have claimed it was.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/campaign-colluded-russians-2016-hillary-clintons/

Now, go ahead and attack me, attack the source, attempt to belittle me, tell me hillary was investigated, so on and so forth.

Provable? Just as much, or as little, as trump.

I expected no less from you.

I gave it the exact amount of attention it deserved. A laugh and nothing more.

Can you start using "indicated" instead of "proven?"

Then I won't feel obligated to say anything, and I can instead shrug, nod, and say that's fair.

Debunked is slightly misleading, too. There has been no solid evidence to support Trump's assertions (assertion in place of lie, as well) would be more accurate.

A lack of evidence for one thing doesn't prove the alternative.

That's the kind of thinking that got Galileo imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

I guess zero evidence doesn't prove anything to you. You do realize that flies in the face of logic don't you?

According to that almost nothing in this world can be proven. Ideological refusal to see the obvious is a rare malady. I hope it isn't contagious.

John Durham reportedly scrutinizing John Brennan's role in Russian interference findings

The New York Times reports that John Durham wants to compare John Brennan's private communications with his public comments on the Steele dossier and Russian interference intel assessment.

What - now your back to dabbling in reports about unpublished reports? LOL. Go figure.

No, it's expecting a lack of evidence to be seen as proof that flies in the face of logic.

Lots of things can be proven. There can be video evidence. There can be forensic evidence. There's no such thing as "we didn't find anything" evidence.

The Hamma ...lol. Impeached.

That's conspiracy theory logic.

"We have zero evidence but it probably happened anyway!" The old, "grasping at straws" theory.

No. I'm more looking at things along the lines of why we use the term "found not guilty" rather than "proven innocent."

I'm arguing that it probably didn't happen, but it wasn't proven that it didn't.

Trump clearly doesn't have enough to "find them guilty," but that doesn't make them innocent.

It just means there was a lack of evidence.

People who find evidence for a living are those most able to know how to avoid the methods that they typically employ.

"Admitting one's ignorance is the first step in acquiring knowledge." -Socrates

The IG cannot press charges or indict.
Durham is a Federal Prosecutor with a Grand Jury. He can.

You do understand the difference in zero evidence and a lack of evidence don't you?

ie... Found NO bias.

Found NO evidence that the FBI infiltrated the Trump campaign.

Found NO evidence that the investigation was based on the Steele dossier.

Actually, in the case of the Steele dossier, the FBI didn't even have the Steele dossier until three weeks AFTER the investigation of Trump was initiated.

I can see the misunderstanding here. You have simply confused a lack of evidence with no evidence.

Only if he manufactures something that isn't there.

If only you understood.

The IG cannot press charges or indict.
The IG is limited in what and who he can investigate.

Durham is a Federal Prosecutor with a Grand Jury. He can indict.
Durham can investigate the FBI, CIA, NSA, Justice Department and any other Federal agency.
Durham can investigate internationally.
Durham can investigate Private Organizations and Private Companies.

The IG found 17 dirty deeds.

Durham has yet to report.

Lack: noun. the state of being without.

Without = no = zero

It actually is the same thing.

The other point your missing is the "found" part. If you're playing hide and seek, and your kid doesn't find you, does that mean you don't exist until you're found? That's the logical pattern of your argument. If you keep mindlessly saying the same flawed argument over and over again, that's not going to make it true.

The only reason the Steele dossier didn't start the investigation is that instead of opening a new investigation it was piggybacked on top of a failing one, changing the investigation's direction. It happens a lot in politically inspired fishing expeditions. An investigation relying on requests filled with "errors and omissions." An investigation saved by a dossier that was funded by a politically motivated party. A dossier provided by an FBI affiliate whose work was never used in an FBI trial because it wasn't ever found sufficiently viable by those prosecuting criminals for the FBI.

Which still doesn't go to say that anything in this circus has been proven either way.

One side's interpretation of events seems more likely.

Still you have to prove guilt. Innocence is supposed to be the assumption.

Your definition of lack is misleading. Lack is more a deficiency than an absence of.

Definition of lack per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lack

intransitive verb

1 : to be deficient or missing
time is lacking for a full explanation

2 : to be short or have need of something

he will not lack for advisers
The area does not lack for good restaurants.

transitive verb

: to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or deficiency of
lack the necessities of life

She lacked confidence.

lack noun

Definition of lack
1 : the fact or state of being wanting or deficient
a lack of evidence
2 : something that is lacking or is needed