"If I knew then, what I know now"

National security, dork. It was compromised.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "there he goes again". How was national security compromised? And if it was, why didn't Mueller prosecute anybody for that act?


And if lying to the FBI ( way ahead of you here ) is compromising national security, what is lying by the FBI? What is lying to a FISA Court?


The new President through his National Security Adviser asking a foreign leader to "hold off" on actions such as sanctions, does nothing to jeopardize our national security but a President asking a foreign leader to hold off doing something so that he might win re-election just might jeopardize national security but you sure as hell don't want to discuss that, do you.


The second in command at the FBI ( McCabe ) not telling the acting AG ( Rosenstein ) everything he knows about the investigation of national security matters, most certainly could compromise national security.

Duplicate

Still waiting on the "stain" of evidence. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

All you had to do was watch the Senate hearing today and you would have heard the evidence for yourself. The fact that you do not see "evidence" in the acting AG saying he would not take the same action today that he took back then, because the FBI withheld evidence from him is evidence of malfeasance and I'm pretty sure that Durham will clear that up for you, well, maybe not you who can't seem to see evidence right in front of your face and prefer to make up evidence like "compromised national security" and "destabilization", maybe you won't see it.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "there he goes again". How was national security compromised? And if it was, why didn't Mueller prosecute anybody for that act?


And if lying to the FBI ( way ahead of you here ) is compromising national security, what is lying by the FBI? What is lying to a FISA Court? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Lying by the FBI is politics. Lying to any judge is criminal.

I like the Reagan quote. I mean, I remember the Reagan quote.

I was, and still am, way ahead of YOU before the post. Or thread. "Turkey and Swiss please."

The facts say so. And still using "yous"?

A transcript of Donald Trump’s meeting with The Washington Post editorial board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...itorial-board/

Quote:
Page exited the Trump campaign in September 2016 amid questions about his connections to Russia, including a speech he gave in Moscow months earlier where he criticized US foreign policy and struck a Kremlin-friendly tone. The first FISA warrant was approved in October 2016.

The NSA hasn't released the explanations given for why Obama officials asked to unmask the reports about Flynn. But around that time, Flynn was engaged in controversial discussions and meetings with officials from Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
The facts say so. And still using "yous"?

A transcript of Donald Trump’s meeting with The Washington Post editorial board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...itorial-board/


Quote:
RYAN: Thank you… We’ve heard you’re going to be announcing your foreign policy team shortly… Any you can share with us?

TRUMP: Well, I hadn’t thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names… Walid Phares, who you probably know, PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives caucus, and counter-terrorism expert; Carter Page, PhD; George Papadopoulos, he’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy; the Honorable Joe Schmitz, [former] inspector general at the Department of Defense; [retired] Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; and I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do, but that’s a representative group.

FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR: Do you want to start out?

TRUMP: No, other than to say, we’re working hard, I think we’re all in the same business of trying to make our country better, a better place, so we have something in common. I’ve been treated very, very badly by The Washington Post, but, you know, I guess — and I’m your neighbor, I’m your neighbor right down the road, in fact we’re actually giving a press conference there in a little while, I think your people are going to be there. And by the way, Bob Costa is an excellent reporter, I’ve found him to be just an excellent reporter. I should tell you, because I have to give you the good and the bad. Not that he does me any favors, because he doesn’t, but he’s a real professional.




Anyone remember Turkey? Why are they so important to this story?











Energy?

Or power? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

so your proof is that Trump mentions Papadopoulos and Page in a interview with the Washington Post?

really?


the only thing that made Papadopoulos and Page "suspicious" is that they agreed to positions in Trump's incoming administration.

All you had to do was watch the Senate hearing today and you would have heard the evidence for yourself. The fact that you do not see "evidence" in the acting AG saying he would not take the same action today that he took back then, because the FBI withheld evidence from him is evidence of malfeasance and I'm pretty sure that Durham will clear that up for you, well, maybe not you who can't seem to see evidence right in front of your face and prefer to make up evidence like "compromised national security" and "destabilization", maybe you won't see it. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I accept it as politics as usual. I'm passed it. Is withholding evidence the same as an ommision? Like not telling the whole truth.

Lying to the judge is criminal. Are you standing up for Rosenstein? You sound wishy-washy?

I have to sleep. I only get a couple hours a day to troll you Obama Compulsive Disorder patients. Sometimes in the middle of the day.

I had a more important hearimg to listen to. LISTEN to, as I work. Not retired yet.

The Senate hearing on logistics. And how corporations want limited liability when they kill customers and employees.








Thanks for the exchange.

Brought out my signature memes and gifs.

so your proof is that Trump mentions Papadopoulos and Page in a interview with the Washington Post?

really?


the only thing that made Papadopoulos and Page "suspicious" is that they agreed to positions in Trump's incoming administration.



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

2016
Who Is Carter Page?
The mystery of Trump’s man in Moscow.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-moscow-214283

Reporters quickly Googling found that Page is the founder and managing partner of an investment fund called Global Energy Capital, and that he claims to have years of experience investing in Russia and the energy sector. As for his connection to Trump, when Page was reached for comment by the New York Times the day after Trump’s big reveal, he said he had been sending policy memos to the campaign and the paper said he “will be advising Mr. Trump on energy policy and Russia.”

Good niiiight.

looks to me that the deep state parties involved wanted to "taint" trump's consultants. this was part of an effort to cripple the trump administration of qualified advisors.

2016
Who Is Carter Page?
The mystery of Trump’s man in Moscow.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-moscow-214283


Was Page the shadowy messenger between the Kremlin and Trump Tower, or was he the nebbishy, not-very-successful man trying to profit from the arbitrage between what Trump said—he’s my adviser—and what his associates said—“Who?” Maybe I wasn’t doing this right, and maybe everyone was lying to me, but it was hard not to come to the conclusion that, regardless of whatever game the Russians were running, Page was firmly in the latter camp.










Good niiiight.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

this is from your own politico article. after rambling on about Page and his so-called name dropping where he might have gotten some meeting with a russkie because he was associated with Trump's campaign, the author himself dismisses Page as some low level Merrill Lynch broker just trying to pitch some deals for his startup.



doesn't exactly make a case for an FBI investigation, does it? it was Harry Reid being Harry Reid that got his crony "Legs" Comey to use these so-called speeches and maybe some meeting as a pretext to paint Page as some "operative". it's laughable.

Lying to any judge is criminal. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Can you say "dossier"?

9500 is still stuck on "Russian collusion" - despite Rosenstein's denial there waas any evidence.

Believe what One wants - no number of folish robespierre memes amount to concrete evidence of what deluded 9500 believes - regardless of factual Evidence.



so sad to be so deluded.


if 9500 had been the focus of an illegal warrant and surveillance - i bet u it would be screaming loudly to all the liberal rags about the trump administration - and all the LSM would be echoing the idiocy - but No - Hypocrisy rules - any action - illegal is fine - is acceptable to DPST's in their Trump hate.

Lying by the FBI is politics.



We will see if that holds up.


Senator Rand Paul suggests that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith ought to have criminal charges brought against him.

He explains: “What they did to Carter Page is an abomination. Not only should they apologize, I think some people may go to jail over this.”
He singles out “Clinesmith, who doctored an email to obscure the fact that all of these contacts that Carter Page was having, he was reporting to the CIA.



Lying to any judge is criminal.



Then Comey and McCabe are in deep do do.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Your obsession with memes is childish.

I accept it as politics as usual. I'm passed it. Is withholding evidence the same as an ommision? Like not telling the whole truth.



In this instance, withholding information is called a Brady violation and yes, it is a violation of the law. An omission, if proven to be willful, is against the law as FBI council Clinesmith will soon find out. The FBI lying to a superior will get him or her fired. FBI lying to a judge in an affidavit will get him or her prosecuted I'm betting.

“A

Brady violation

occurs when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the accused. ... ' The reversal of a conviction is required upon a 'showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.

Lying to the judge is criminal. Are you standing up for Rosenstein? You sound wishy-washy?


You sound like you have reading comprehension problems. I was explaining what Rosenstein said, nothing more and Rosenstein has just sullied whatever reputation he may have had by admitting he didn't perform his duties as acting AG. That sound of "wishy washy" is in your brain and it sounds like a permanent condition.


I have to sleep.


Is that your excuse for poor judgement?


Thanks for the exchange. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Such as it was.

..Who Is Carter Page?... Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Carter Page single-handedly Futt Bucked the entire elite echelons of the FBI all the way up to Obamma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. He was nobody of any interest, influence, not even on the payroll and was never charged with a darned thing. Not even jaywalking or failing to use a turn signal. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.


He is the absolute definition of a nothing burger and the dopes at the FBI put the whole case to take down GEPOTUS Trump on his back and they failed spectacularly. The biggest face plant of all time.

I accept it as politics as usual. I'm passed it. Is withholding evidence the same as an ommision? Like not telling the whole truth.



In this instance, withholding information is called a Brady violation and yes, it is a violation of the law. An omission, if proven to be willful, is against the law as FBI council Clinesmith will soon find out. The FBI lying to a superior will get him or her fired. FBI lying to a judge in an affidavit will get him or her prosecuted I'm betting.

“A

Brady violation

occurs when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the accused. ... ' The reversal of a conviction is required upon a 'showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.

Lying to the judge is criminal. Are you standing up for Rosenstein? You sound wishy-washy?


You sound like you have reading comprehension problems. I was explaining what Rosenstein said, nothing more and Rosenstein has just sullied whatever reputation he may have had by admitting he didn't perform his duties as acting AG. That sound of "wishy washy" is in your brain and it sounds like a permanent condition.


I have to sleep.


Is that your excuse for poor judgement?


Thanks for the exchange. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Such as it was.


Like so many other examples I have brought up, you can't seem to take a quote like the one by Rosenstein that he would not sign the FISA application now knowing that the FBI lied/ falsely stated and admit it has relevance like the quote of "what do we want, the truth or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired". I've asked you to comment on that several times but you won't comment on anything you don't have a good answer for. How is it ever OK for the FBI to ask if the truth is what they want from an investigation? Do you have an answer to that other than you think it is politics as usual which you seem to think is fine unless it is a Republican practicing politics as usual which only proves you to be a hypocrite, like this for example.



I've asked you to comment on Obama pardoning a General for lying to the FBI. Nothing from you.


I've asked you how Flynn asking Russia to hold off on retaliating against sanctions is compromising national security? No good answer.


I asked you how the US was "destabilized" by Flynn asking that of Russia. No answer.


My frustration with you is not that you disagree with me but that you are afraid to actually debate and answer simple questions that obviously make you uncomfortable in answering. I pride myself on never failing to answer a question asked of me. I wish you would do the same but then you don't have the time, right?