Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

POTUS 2017: pre-impeachment/resignation discussion

Comey obstruction memos Intel drop to Russia

  • Please log in to reply
314 replies to this topic

#61 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 08:02 PM

Has anyone read the story about Kushner's secret Dec 2016 meeting with a CEO of VEB bank (Russia state-owned bank)?

How the Russians give a different account of what the meeting was all about than the White House?

I ain't trusting anyones account at this point (though I did think they could both be telling part of the truth - more on that later).


It has occurred to me that the Russians can have their cake and eat it too. Maybe not as much as they'd hope, but still plenty.
- If they are/were successful in cozying up to Trump & associates and get 'concessions' and sanctions withdrawn, they gain points.
- If they destabilize and weaken U.S./NATO/Europe/Trans-atlantic co-operation, they gain points. They don't even have to do much for this to happen, Trump is doing all the work. But they could lob statements like bomb to destabilize the U.S. further. They could do this with truths or lies, whatever is convenient.


So, their accounts?

VEB bank says this meeting was held as part of a new business strategy and Kushner was there as head of his family's real estate business, not as a POTUS-elect transition official.

WH says this meeting was unrelated to business and one of many diplomatic encounters the soon-to-be presidential advisor had in the transition period.


Um, my understanding is that the onerous sanctions on VEB in 2014 were such that Americans were prohibited from providing new financing to VEB.

So, what kind of business would VEB and an American individual/corporation have to discuss with each other when they couldn't do business easily due to sanctions?

So, what if they were doing both? Discussing a quid-pro-quo, Trump & associates will work on lifting the sanctions, and once everything can be above board for them to reward Trump &/or Kushner with investments?

It almost makes me wonder if Trump's possible long-time Russia-business ties are what lead him to run for POTUS after playing with the idea for almost 30 years! Then Trump's funding from Russia dries up with the 2014 sanctions, and in June 2015 he throws his hat in the ring for POTUS? Maybe a little far fetched ;)

But, when it comes to Kushner's meeting, and the repeating secrecy/lying about them, what is the occam's razor answers?

Edited by sierraleone, 03 June 2017 - 07:42 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#62 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 08:39 PM

^ Yeah, I've been all over that but haven't posted yet because this electric stuff whizzes by so fast it's almost like watching shooting stars during a meteor shower or a professional fireworks show with skyrockets.  You go, "woooo, that's a pretty awesome one!" and don't want to miss the next one so even a really big one just joins the list of the series of exciting beautiful sky flashes.

I think you covered the gist and import of it pretty well. Saved me the trouble. :) And the really great thing is, besides us both being all over it...so I'd assume is Bob Mueller and his crew, sharpening their Occam's razors.  ;)

Edited by yadda yadda, 02 June 2017 - 08:41 PM.


#63 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 01:19 PM

I just heard that representatives of the president have said that he will most likely be live tweeting during the Comey hearing on Thursday. I think that's just peachy awesome sauce! What could possibly go wrong? :) I just hope during the hours of that hearing is not when N. Korea, Russia, or ISIS decide to launch a "Red Dawn" style attack on us. Everybody will be out to lunch and distracted staring at a TV set or streaming device.

And any bets or suggestions on what derogatory Twitter nickname 45 will decide on for his nemesis, the former FBI Director. "Phony Comey"?...."Phony Baloney Comey".... "Comey, Satan's Homie"..."BananafannafoComey"?

Edited by yadda yadda, 06 June 2017 - 04:48 PM.


#64 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:43 PM

Little things I'm hearing about the upcoming Comey "come to Jesus" meeting/ hearing for the POtuS on Thursday. Chuck Todd had Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia on today and the guy sounded more like a Republican than a Dem tip-toeing around Todd's questions about how he might go about his business during the hearing. DINO Joe said he'd asked his constituents through his website what questions they'd like for him to ask and the # 1 interest was "if Comey thought that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in soft pedaling an investigation for Gen. Flynn, why didn't Comey act on it?"

So I guess Manchin and his West Virginians would typically be the ones wanting to know why didn't a rape victim scream a little louder, why was she wearing a tight sweater, and why did she wait  a whole 15 minutes after regaining consciousness from her beating to call the police? Might be interesting to watch Manchin on Thursday arranging his inquiry and attitude to appeal to the backwoods yahoos in his state who voted for 45.

And word is that Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton will be dining with president 45 at the White House tonight, two days before the hearing. How collegial! Will little Marco get an extra nice slice of chocolate cake in exchange for his loyalty pledge? Will Cotton get his first three questions Magic Markered on his palm and wrist by the president himself?

Edited by yadda yadda, 06 June 2017 - 05:35 PM.


#65 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:33 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 06 June 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

I just heard that representatives of the president have said that he will most likely be live tweeting during the Comey hearing on Thursday. I think that's just peachy awesome sauce! What could possibly go wrong? :)

Boy, they are trying to roll in Christmas with Easter and all the other holidays for you aren't they? :D

Sadly, the only screen I will be attached to is the on on my employer's computer, I'll have to catch up after.

View Postyadda yadda, on 06 June 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:

Little things I'm hearing about the upcoming Comey "come to Jesus" meeting/ hearing for the POtuS on Thursday. Chuck Todd had Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia on today and the guy sounded more like a Republican than a Dem tip-toeing around Todd's questions about how he might go about his business during the hearing. DINO Joe said he'd asked his constituents through his website what questions they'd like for him to ask and the # 1 interest was "if Comey thought that Trump was trying to obstruct justice in soft pedaling an investigation for Gen. Flynn, why didn't Comey act on it?"

Yep, victim shaming/blame shifting at its finest. Maybe he thought Trump was just too stupid, and just had to be "trained" a little on the proper relationship of POTUS & the FBI. Also, how does he act on that properly? Go where with it? To Jeff Sessions? Ha! To members of the majority party (the party that can actually do anything)? Ha! To the public? He would have been ripped to shreds. And he wasn't going to let Trump stop him from investigating, so he probably thought he could "handle" it, and if it came to a point he couldn't, then he'd act.

The real question though: Why was Trump trying to obstruct Justice?
Comey may not have gotten to the answer of that as far as he got into the investigation, but even if he did, I doubt that will become known Thursday in the public session.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#66 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 07:51 PM

These three breaking tidbits just in. Apparently 45 had sought to retain the services of a top law firm to help staff his " war room" in dealing with the daily slings and arrows from the Russia-collusion-coverup investigation. Four top firms turned him down citing two factors mitigating against their potential representation of him...he doesn't listen and he doesn't pay.  :)

When 45 asked Pence and Sessions to leave the Oval Office during a meeting with them and Comey, the day after 45 fired Gen. Flynn, and 45 pressed Comey to let any Flynn investigation go because he was a " good guy"...the very next day Comey told Sessions that he didn't want to be left alone with 45 anymore.

And lastly, this just in from WaPo, five weeks after the Flynn firing and a week after the Senate confirmation of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, 45 once again dismissed Sessions and everyone else from an intelligence meeting except for DNI Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. When he had them alone together 45 complained about the way Comey was pushing the Russia investigation and asked them to intervene by convincing Comey to back off on Flynn and Russia-45 coordination/coverup. This Coats told associates at the DNI.  An  interesting line of inquiry I would think for the hearing on Thursday. Maybe they can subpoena Sessions, Coats, and Pompeo to work it all out.

#67 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 08:04 PM

^ Thank you for sharing that here. I don't think I would have gotten around to sharing that, because just too much stuff on my plate at the moment.

I had read in relation to the lawyers refusing to represent him, that his lawyers during his corporate bankruptcies had a rule to never be alone with Trump. Even then they knew he would lie, etc, and wanted a witness, in case it came up later.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#68 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 08:25 PM

^ No problem, sierraleone. There's  just always SO much stuff about this scumbag every day, the sheer amount of crap he's up to can get lost in the shuffle. I reserve this thread for things I think are relevant to getting him out. But there are individual stories that really need to be explained and highlighted, for posterity if not for EI members too shell shocked to sift through the news every day.

And if I have time later I'll do that on the Eric 45's / kid's cancer charity rip-off cash cow over on your POTUS  thread mentioned in your WTFJHT entry. Or at least recommend to all here to check it out more closely. These 45ers are so unprincipled, so dirty. It's hard to believe how low they can sink sometimes.

Edited by yadda yadda, 07 June 2017 - 02:11 AM.


#69 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 06:49 AM

To watch out for today: Senate Intelligence Committee holding hearings with the following people testifying - DAG Rod Rosenstein, FBI acting director McCabe, NSA Director Adm Mike Rogers, DNI Dan Coats.

The first two are fairly close to the either James Comey or his firing, as most people know. There are news reports that the latter two had been asked by Trump if they could ask Comey to back off or go more softly on the Mike Flynn/Russia investigation.

Somehow I think there will be little attention to the original reason for this hearing, about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Edited by sierraleone, 07 June 2017 - 06:50 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#70 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 12:36 PM

For those who missed this morning's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing featuring NSA chief Mike Rogers, DNI Director Dan Coats, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, it was basically a stonewall by Rogers and Coats concerning conversations with president 45 where he reportedly asked them to intervene, cast public doubt, and try to sway James Comey to backing off on investigating Gen. Flynn and aspects of the Russia investigation. Rogers issued a scripted and rote statement, repeated over and over like he was taking the 5th that he never felt pressured or directed to intervene in an illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate manner in any investigation. Coats more or less echoed Rogers' statement.

But the issue of being pressured or directed to intervene was not the gist of the Committee members interest, the same sort of misleading mealy-mouth dodge reminiscent of NSA McMaster defending 45's dump of extremely sensitive Israeli intel to the Russians, then asserting that "sources and methods" had not been revealed, when no one had reported or claimed that sources and methods had been revealed.  Senators of both parties inquired as to whether each gentleman had been "asked" by the president or anyone else to intervene in an investigation. Both men refused to answer, claiming their belief that conversations with the president were "confidential". This refusal was met with consternation and disappointment, by both Republican and Democratic Senators, as well as Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine who excoriated DNI Director Coats, demanding his legal basis for refusing to answer. Coats answered that he wasn't sure that he had one.

At least DNI head Coats seemed to indicate he might be willing to spill the beans on his confidential conversations with 45 in a closed, non-public hearing. Considering that the committee can call in the specific witnesses who came forward to the Washington Post and confirmed that Coats had already disclosed his conversations with 45 to a large number of people working at the DNI, perhaps Mr. Coats might want to come forward with the requested information and avoid a contempt of Congress charge.

Another interesting exchange was between Deputy AG Rosenstein and Ca. Sen. Kamala Harris. Harris tried to get Rosenstein to commit to whether he'd issue a letter making sure that Special Counsel Mueller was 100% independent and not subject to firing by the DOJ or the 45 administration. Rosenstein became evasive and attempted to use up all the Senator's time so Sen. Harris told him it was a yes or no question. Committee Chairman Burr admonished Harris to be courteous to the weaselly witness. Harris noted to Chairman Burr that this witness had bragged jokingly that he could filibuster any question.. Rosenstein then spun out a lengthy blah, blah, blah, answer that essentially said his own personal integrity (and that of whomever might take over if he had to recuse himself) would ensure Mueller's independence and continuation as Special Counselor. Kamala Harris sat there, hands under chin, and last uttered as her time was now gone..."so that's a no, then?"  ;)

#71 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 01:40 PM

CNN and MSNBC just reported and discussed a newly released seven page summary of testimony from James Comey informing the Senate Intelligence Committee in great detail and a day in advance of his appearance of his interactions and conversations with 45, both in person and by phone.

The 7 pages of Comey testimony are available by link at both the NY Times website as well as CNN and probably other sites by now. I couldn't locate or figure out a link address to put here or I would have. Maybe someone else can.

Having read it I can say that Comey recounts his recollections comprehensively, and they line up pretty closely to the accounts we've already heard through release of info by his friends and associates to the press, only much more detailed in words and impressions. It's worthwhile reading and I hope all here get a chance to check it out before tomorrow morning's hearing. Of course it will be all over CNN and MSNBC all day today, maybe not on Fox so much.  ;)  It's better read for yourself than hearing it from a talking head anyway.

#72 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,781 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 02:04 PM

Comey Opening Statement prior to testimony tomorrow in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee...

https://www.intellig...omey-060817.pdf

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#73 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:15 PM

View PostCait, on 07 June 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Comey Opening Statement prior to testimony tomorrow in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee...

https://www.intellig...omey-060817.pdf


So Comey only took memos after meetings with Trump, but not Obama or anyone else? So much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. Having said that, to my knowledge Comey wasn't investigating Obama, so perhaps that's why no memos? Although I am surprised Comey didn't take memos after AG Lynch met privately with the spouse of a person the DOJ was investigating?

But even from these 7 pages, there is no crime committed here by President Trump. A request isn't obstruction. It isn't a order.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#74 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:28 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

So Comey only took memos after meetings with Trump, but not Obama or anyone else? So much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. Having said that, to my knowledge Comey wasn't investigating Obama, so perhaps that's why no memos? Although I am surprised Comey didn't take memos after AG Lynch met privately with the spouse of a person the DOJ was investigating?

Comey wasn't party to the AG - Bill Clinton meeting was he? And who, after this event, would he need to take memos about when meeting? Are you suggesting Obama? Lynch? Bill &/or Hillary Clinton?

As he said in the document, he only met with Obama twice, and the time that is after this AG Lynch meeting was purportedly just a good bye.

Quote

But even from these 7 pages, there is no crime committed here by President Trump. A request isn't obstruction. It isn't a order.

Is that the interpretation most people have of a request their boss made?

People in power can couch orders as requests or statements for various reason. To show off (look what I can make this person do!), or as obfuscate for plausible deniability, or even to just be polite and courteous. I think you know enough to realize this.

You think if the Queen asks of her waiter "Could you get from the kitchens some steak cut up in bit size pieces for my corgis please" (or anything else) that anyone is mistaken in thinking such statements are requests, just because they include the word "could" and "please"?

ETA: and what about the 'statement' of Trump's, according to Comey "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty."

Entirely copacetic? From a person in position of incredible power? Really?

Edited by sierraleone, 07 June 2017 - 06:01 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#75 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 06:02 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 07 June 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Comey Opening Statement prior to testimony tomorrow in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee...

https://www.intellig...omey-060817.pdf


So Comey only took memos after meetings with Trump, but not Obama or anyone else? So much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. Having said that, to my knowledge Comey wasn't investigating Obama, so perhaps that's why no memos? Although I am surprised Comey didn't take memos after AG Lynch met privately with the spouse of a person the DOJ was investigating?

But even from these 7 pages, there is no crime committed here by President Trump. A request isn't obstruction. It isn't a order.

"So Comey only took memos after meetings with Trump, but not Obama or anyone else?"

Where do you get the "or anyone else" from? Comey indicated he didn't take notes of the two meetings he had with Obama, one to say goodbye. How do you extrapolate "or anyone else" from that? Yet from that you go on to conclude "so much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. So you proceed from one illogical premise picked out of your posterior nether region to an assertion of utter non- factual BS based upon its  false "validity". And if I may ask, who on the "left" is defending Comey? Why, and from what is/are the "left" defending Comey from or about?

And since you assert so flatly and conclusively on the lack of grounds for criminal legal obstruction of justice in this case, can you outline the parameters and legal standards and barriers of proof required to establish a proper case? Did you somehow get the impression that Comey was trying to prove or promote a case for obstruction from his recollections? It seems to me if he felt there were grounds for that circumstance during his tenure he would have acted differently and more aggressively. Obstruction of justice is an evolving process including many interrelated facets of a comprehensive investigation. And believe me, it's ripening before our eyes and fruition is within sight.

Edited by yadda yadda, 07 June 2017 - 06:14 PM.


#76 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,909 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 09:05 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

But even from these 7 pages, there is no crime committed here by President Trump. A request isn't obstruction. It isn't a order.

Um, and prey tell, what was the firing of Comey? Even if you were able to brush off the obstruction inside those 7 pages if isolated (which I already argued against), consider them, and the May 11 Trump interview with Lester Holt, evidence that Comey's firing is obstruction of justice.

Edited by sierraleone, 07 June 2017 - 10:13 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#77 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 10:05 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 07 June 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

But even from these 7 pages, there is no crime committed here by President Trump. A request isn't obstruction. It isn't a order.

Um, and prey tell, what was the firing of Comey? Even if you were able to brush off the obstruction (which I already argued agains), consider it, and the May 11 Trump interview with Lester Holt, evidence that Comey's firing as obstruction of justice.

Five elements of obstruction. Evidence of actions to interfere/shut down investigation with corrupt intent.

(1) Summoning Comey to dinner Jan 27. Suggesting that continuation of his job is on the line unless presidential need for loyalty is satisfied.

(2) Deliberately clear Oval Office of witnesses. Ask Comey to stay behind and suggest/request he let investigation of Mike Flynn go.

(3) Following up through phone calls complaining about direction of investigation and "cloud" it creates. Urging Comey repeatedly to publicly profess 45's innocence from suspicion and contradict media reports of administration associates collusion with Russia, notably Flynn.

(4) Firing Comey, giving false official pretext for doing so.

(5) 45 admitting publicly on NBC to firing Comey because of Russia investigation pressure. Then following up by telling Russians that he fired Comey to ease Russia investigation pressure...lifting the "cloud".

This shows intent to obstruct. Deliberate/ intentional corrupt machination to carry through obstruction. Failing that action, removing the "problematic" law enforcement official conducting the investigation and refusing to back off despite pressure and implied threat to employment. And admission of intent to obstruct turned to completed obstruction by admission of motivation for completed action of obstruction and relief at having investigational pressure alleviated. Supporting evidence in the form of reported other contemporaneous seeking by 45 to squelch investigation by importuning on other intelligence officials to convince Comey to back,off the investigation.

#78 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 12:47 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 07 June 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:


Is that the interpretation most people have of a request their boss made?

People in power can couch orders as requests or statements for various reason. To show off (look what I can make this person do!), or as obfuscate for plausible deniability, or even to just be polite and courteous. I think you know enough to realize this.

You think if the Queen asks of her waiter "Could you get from the kitchens some steak cut up in bit size pieces for my corgis please" (or anything else) that anyone is mistaken in thinking such statements are requests, just because they include the word "could" and "please"?

Valid point here.


Quote


ETA: and what about the 'statement' of Trump's, according to Comey "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty."

Entirely copacetic? From a person in position of incredible power? Really?


What about it? What is wrong with wanting an employee to be loyal?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#79 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 12:53 AM

View Postyadda yadda, on 07 June 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:


Where do you get the "or anyone else" from? Comey indicated he didn't take notes of the two meetings he had with Obama, one to say goodbye. How do you extrapolate "or anyone else" from that? Yet from that you go on to conclude "so much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. So you proceed from one illogical premise picked out of your posterior nether region to an assertion of utter non- factual BS based upon its  false "validity". And if I may ask, who on the "left" is defending Comey? Why, and from what is/are the "left" defending Comey from or about?


It was on one of the mainstream cable news programs, when leaks about Comey's memos were coming out. I forget which show it was, but they went into detail about Comey always taking notes after meetings, etc. Probably should've known better, I guess, then to trust fake news programming.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#80 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 01:16 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 08 June 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 07 June 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:


Where do you get the "or anyone else" from? Comey indicated he didn't take notes of the two meetings he had with Obama, one to say goodbye. How do you extrapolate "or anyone else" from that? Yet from that you go on to conclude "so much for the whole "Comey always takes detailed memos of meetings" defense from the left. So you proceed from one illogical premise picked out of your posterior nether region to an assertion of utter non- factual BS based upon its  false "validity". And if I may ask, who on the "left" is defending Comey? Why, and from what is/are the "left" defending Comey from or about?


It was on one of the mainstream cable news programs, when leaks about Comey's memos were coming out. I forget which show it was, but they went into detail about Comey always taking notes after meetings, etc. Probably should've known better, I guess, then to trust fake news programming.

So your fake news told you that Comey takes no notes or memos for "anyone else" besides 45? That's where you got that? Well great, I think you should go with that and what's more, believe everything you're told and read. There's really no point for engaging in critical thinking. Like your messiah boy says, physical exercise is counterproductive because everyone's body is born with a finite amount of energy. Not good to waste it. Same with brain activity. Like a car battery the old gray matter can only take so many starts before it just refuses to crank over the starter. No sense wearing out those fragile axons and neurons by zapping too much stimuli through there.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users