Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

Clinesmith’s email was later in 2017, but pp is still making stupid assumptions because the FBI is not the Borg. Information is compartmentalized, and for very good reason.

Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017.

What’s the source for that? I’m having trouble finding a reference through google.

Carter Page interview with Maria Bartiromo. He says “the next week” so maybe it was the first week of April. The FBI interviews were in March according to his book.

Which interview? He’s done a couple with her.

See Maria’s Twitter feed posted about 4 hours ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

Clinesmith’s email was later in 2017, but pp is still making stupid assumptions because the FBI is not the Borg. Information is compartmentalized, and for very good reason.

Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017.

What’s the source for that? I’m having trouble finding a reference through google.

Carter Page interview with Maria Bartiromo. He says “the next week” so maybe it was the first week of April. The FBI interviews were in March according to his book.

Which interview? He’s done a couple with her.

See Maria’s Twitter feed posted about 4 hours ago.

What’s the time stamp on it? I didn’t hear that in the interview, but maybe i got distracted and missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

[Anonymous]

You guys...
The issue isn’t that he was an axe murderer. It’s that they were investigating him to remove him from more axe murdering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Is this some sort of elaborate sarcasm? Or do you you just totally misunderstand what anyone means or meant by "Vive la resistance"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Is this some sort of elaborate sarcasm? Or do you you just totally misunderstand what anyone means or meant by "Vive la resistance"?

You can parse Clinesmith’s words all you want but he already pled guilty. It’s all coming out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

it was and is a counterintelligence investigation. the right wing echo chamber is trying to conflate this and it seems to be working on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

But there was spying!

Would anything gathered in the investigation have been used for purposes of impeaching Trump? Certainly seems like it, so wouldn't that have been an attempt to overturn a presidential election by removing Trump from office?

I still don't understand why Trump supporters thin the hundreds of contacts between the Trump orbit and the Russian government, Russian oligarchs and the GRU are normal or ok. Please explain.

That wasn't the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the surveillance and investigation were being conducted to gather evidence intended for use in removing a sitting president, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

They were surveilling members of the Russian Government and Russian spies for the purpose of protecting our country. It isn't the FBI's fault that people like Kushner, Flynn and Junior were rolled up because they were talking to them so much. Why are you ok with all of the points of contact between Trump orbit and Russians?

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Is this some sort of elaborate sarcasm? Or do you you just totally misunderstand what anyone means or meant by "Vive la resistance"?

You can parse Clinesmith’s words all you want but he already pled guilty. It’s all coming out.

Ookay.

So it wasn't sarcasm. Should have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Comey went rogue when he disclosed the re-opening of the Hillary case because of Weiner's laptop, which ended up being BS but turned enough voters in the last week to throw the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Comey went rogue when he disclosed the re-opening of the Hillary case because of Weiner's laptop, which ended up being BS but turned enough voters in the last week to throw the election.

No, that has nothing to do with this. We’re talking about his signing of illegal FISA warrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

Clinesmith’s email was later in 2017, but pp is still making stupid assumptions because the FBI is not the Borg. Information is compartmentalized, and for very good reason.

Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017.

What’s the source for that? I’m having trouble finding a reference through google.

Carter Page interview with Maria Bartiromo. He says “the next week” so maybe it was the first week of April. The FBI interviews were in March according to his book.

Which interview? He’s done a couple with her.

See Maria’s Twitter feed posted about 4 hours ago.

What’s the time stamp on it? I didn’t hear that in the interview, but maybe i got distracted and missed it.

So... no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I question the rationale you're using here. It's clear from various text messages and emails of the key players that there was a cabal of folks who were conducting the investigation with an eye towards removing Trump from office. I believe Strock (sp?) used the phrase "insurance policy," while Clinesmith used the phrase "viva la resistance", just to name a couple. If everything was above board and by the book, why did Sally Yates testify that Comey had "gone rogue"?

Comey went rogue when he disclosed the re-opening of the Hillary case because of Weiner's laptop, which ended up being BS but turned enough voters in the last week to throw the election.

Committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Yates about the circumstances surrounding the interview, particularly the actions of then-FBI Director James Comey.

"I was upset that Director Comey didn't coordinate that with us and acted unilaterally," Yates said.

"Did Comey go rogue?" Graham asked.

"You could use that term, yes," Yates agreed.

Yates said she also took issue with Comey for not telling her that Flynn's communications with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were being investigated and that she first learned about this from President Barack Obama during an Oval Office meeting. Yates said she was "irritated" with Comey for not telling her about this earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

Clinesmith’s email was later in 2017, but pp is still making stupid assumptions because the FBI is not the Borg. Information is compartmentalized, and for very good reason.

Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017.

What’s the source for that? I’m having trouble finding a reference through google.

Carter Page interview with Maria Bartiromo. He says “the next week” so maybe it was the first week of April. The FBI interviews were in March according to his book.

Which interview? He’s done a couple with her.

See Maria’s Twitter feed posted about 4 hours ago.

What’s the time stamp on it? I didn’t hear that in the interview, but maybe i got distracted and missed it.

So... no?

Oh, I thought you were just being a smart aleck. I can’t listen to it for you. I told you where to find it. Trust me or do it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carter Page’s book is out. Turns out he met with FBI five times in March 2017. Kind of hard to claim it was just an oopsie after all.

Only liberals who refuse to admit this was a blatant attempt at preventing/overturning a presidency think it is only an oopsie.

2017=after Trump was inaugurated.

There was no preventing or overturning.

Clinesmith’s email was later in 2017, but pp is still making stupid assumptions because the FBI is not the Borg. Information is compartmentalized, and for very good reason.

Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017.

What’s the source for that? I’m having trouble finding a reference through google.

Carter Page interview with Maria Bartiromo. He says “the next week” so maybe it was the first week of April. The FBI interviews were in March according to his book.

Which interview? He’s done a couple with her.

See Maria’s Twitter feed posted about 4 hours ago.

What’s the time stamp on it? I didn’t hear that in the interview, but maybe i got distracted and missed it.

So... no?

Oh, I thought you were just being a smart aleck. I can’t listen to it for you. I told you where to find it. Trust me or do it yourself.

I did listen to it, and heard nothing to indicate that Clinesmith spoke to Page’s attorney in March 2017 (but perhaps the video I found edited it out or something). Since you’ve declined to verify your statement, I will assume you made it in error.