Breaking: Debbie Wasserman-Schulz' IT staffer arrested while trying to flee US

[Anonymous]

Try posting the text of the U.S. Constitution in a thread. He'll delete it.

I did. He deleted it. The Constitution FFS. Meanwhile, threads about Trump... create them all day!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:No, I am telling the truth.

You haven't deleted it yet, because you look like an ass and stepped in it and haven't recovered yet.

Hilarious. Now you are walking in circles. I delete threads that I can't handle and even though I look like an ass and haven't recovered, I haven't deleted this thread. Do you even read your own posts? If so, can you make sense of them? I sure can't.

Once again, if I post unsupported facts (which actually I almost never do) and you think that is wrong, why do you support others doing that? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Try posting the text of the U.S. Constitution in a thread. He'll delete it.

I did. He deleted it. The Constitution FFS. Meanwhile, threads about Trump... create them all day!

Yeah, I'm sure the text of the U.S. Constitution was totally on topic.

[Anonymous]

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I support doing back to liberals and democrats exactly what they do to others.

Telling, huh?

Now you should have an idea of WHY.

[Anonymous]

^^^

The definition of a confused liberal. Point out a sand in the desert, focus on the one grain of sand and ignore the other million sands around you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try posting the text of the U.S. Constitution in a thread. He'll delete it.

I did. He deleted it. The Constitution FFS. Meanwhile, threads about Trump... create them all day!

Yeah, I'm sure the text of the U.S. Constitution was totally on topic.

It was a new thread and had the text of the Constitution. What topic was off topic?


You've deleted so many threads, you can't even remember what you've deleted.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The definition of a confused liberal. Point out a sand in the desert, focus on the one grain of sand and ignore the other million sands around you.

The definition of a confused conservative. Refuse to notice that the grain of sand is actually a drop of water and that they don't realize the desert is really an ocean.

If the point we are arguing is as insignificant as a grain of sand, why not concede it?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try posting the text of the U.S. Constitution in a thread. He'll delete it.

I did. He deleted it. The Constitution FFS. Meanwhile, threads about Trump... create them all day!

Yeah, I'm sure the text of the U.S. Constitution was totally on topic.

It was a new thread and had the text of the Constitution. What topic was off topic?


You've deleted so many threads, you can't even remember what you've deleted.

Well, if you are routinely posting threads that are simply the text of the constitution, no wonder you are having your threads deleted. Was there a point to your thread?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The definition of a confused liberal. Point out a sand in the desert, focus on the one grain of sand and ignore the other million sands around you.

The definition of a confused conservative. Refuse to notice that the grain of sand is actually a drop of water and that they don't realize the desert is really an ocean.

If the point we are arguing is as insignificant as a grain of sand, why not concede it?

I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian. I want .gov to F off and get the hell out of our lives. You want to perpetuate a failed model.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The definition of a confused liberal. Point out a sand in the desert, focus on the one grain of sand and ignore the other million sands around you.

The definition of a confused conservative. Refuse to notice that the grain of sand is actually a drop of water and that they don't realize the desert is really an ocean.

If the point we are arguing is as insignificant as a grain of sand, why not concede it?

Because when a drop of water is added to a grain of sand it molds with other sand and becomes a ball. If the sand is sitting on flat land, it will go nowhere. If the sand ball is on a slope, it will roll, gathering other grains along the way. The progressive/globalist sand ball started in the 60's has reached the valley and the new nationalist/america first sand ball is rolling down the hill and about to gobble up the cesspool aka DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I told you many times that facts matter and yet you continue to argue your point and when rules are reversed, either delete the thread or question it without a link. Here is a fact you won't argue - the current annual median income in Pakistan is between $1,500 and $3,700 per year. Google it. Based on the $283k wire sent in January 2017, this is equivalent to 76.5 years (the high side of the median income) for the country of Pakistan.

Another important element is one's credibility and the past 30 plus pages has shot holes in your "simple point" of fleeing. If someone wired over 76 years of their country's annual median income, one can surmise that "fleeing" is a motive. Its a simple point that even you can't argue.

I have long said that the facts will eventually come out and the mortgage fraud is a placeholder for the FBI as DWS has blocked any attempt by law enforcement to look at Awan's computer.

I want more popcorn.

You can surmise as much as you want, but that doesn't replace facts. You say that you believe the facts will eventually come out. But, if that is the case, why do you insist on saying that Awan was fleeing when there is no evidence that was actually happening? Why not wait for the facts to come out?

Actually I am waiting for the modern day definition of what "is" is and for you to delete this thread when the indictment is issued.

Or locked. -DP

[Anonymous]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-op-editorial-debbie-wasserman-schultz-20170804-story.html

Some pretty glaring gaps in this opinion. For starters, nothing about her tangle with the Chief of Capitol Police and the member's "property".......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-op-editorial-debbie-wasserman-schultz-20170804-story.html

Some pretty glaring gaps in this opinion. For starters, nothing about her tangle with the Chief of Capitol Police and the member's "property".......

Circling the wagon... If there is a crime (which I highly suspect) the FBI will find it, no doubt.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is like Benghazi. All that energy and time spent on it, just evaporated as soon as Hillary lost the election.

This is the exact same thing. It will disappear as soon as it no longer serves a purpose for the Republicans.

The thing with the conspiracy theorists is that they never lose. If this evaporates, it's just more evidence of the truth being suppressed. If there ends up being something to it, their conspiracy theory was correct all along. Either way, things work out for them.

Bank fraud is serious. He's a crook. What are the odds this is a clean association? Nil

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were no further details beyond what was quoted. My apologies.

I did my own research. Awan's car dealership allegedly took a loan from an Iraqi named Dr. Ali Al-Attar. Here is more info about him:

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote that Attar "was observed in Beirut, Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official" in 2012–shortly after the loan was made. Attar has also been accused of helping provoke the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a leader of Iraqi dissidents opposed to Saddam Hussein.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/congressional-computer-admins-in-criminal-probe-owed-money-to-hezbollah-connected-fugitive/

If you ignore the obtuse wording, you see that Attar was one of the US supported dissidents who encouraged the US invasion of Iraq (he lived in MD and VA). He was seen conversing with a Hezbollah official in Beirut. Keep in mind that Hezbollah holds 12 seats in Lebanon's Parliament and its members hold many official roles in Lebanon's government. So, by itself, this allegation doesn't amount to much.

It amounts to his meeting with Hezbollah - a designated terrorist organization (as designation it maintained theoughout the Alabama administration, BTW).

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups

Just because the terrorist group has a few political members within the Lebanese parliament doesn't make it any less of a designated terror group.

I would not say this "doesn't amount to much."

The guy had a conversation with a Hezbollah official. We have no information about the topic or circumstances of the conversation. Given the official roles of many Hezbollah officials in Lebanon's government, there could be perfectly innocent explanations. Again, why do so many of you insist on jumping to conclusions rather than waiting for the evidence?

Trump talked to a Russian. Impeach!!! Lol