But the hindsight is accurate.


Anyway, you can't let someone "off the hook" that knowingly sent classified documents over non-secure gear, and then to top it off destroys evidence... and then expect the same laws to be your weapon of choice when you manufacture evidence out of thin air.

Just the fact that ANYONE still argues FOR finding Trump guilty, scares the hell out of me. These same folks might breed.

hindsight = do we prosecute.....answer? no. no evidence.

foresight = is it fishy enough to investigate.....answer, split.

witchhunt=hindsight reveals there wasn't enough evidence in foresight to investigate and the person knew it.

that second part is important. VERY important. it is the concept of good faith, can we accept that some people in good faith thought there was some behavior worth investigating? yes. can, at the same time, they be overhyping it for political motivations? yes.

hoax, witchhunt, etc. these are things, in the context of politics, that people undertake knowingly.

did the dems know it would be underwhelming? yup. did they know this was mainly to make trump look shitty? yup. and did they, to a person i'd wager, think there was a real chance the Trump team slipped up and they had a chance to get him on some of the fishy behavior? yup. they all had faith, like idiots.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 21 2019 03:50pm

You can define things however you want. That won't change the fact that we have LAWS in this country, that are supposed to be obeyed.


There WAS enough to warrant investigation...AFTER the Dems created that evidence. :/

please list for me the legal requirements this investigation needed to meet in order to start. Laws. legal codes. plz.

ok, you have me sold on "potential agent". the DTJ tweet i'm noticing is missing the originally sent email... i can understand the stress around it now. it does appear DTJ knew the russian government had some linking to the dirt. (that never existed but still)
there does not seem to be any agreement for "favors" or "reimbursement" though.

i guess a lot of this i don't see the issue because it's "dirt". i don't care if it's dirt on clinton or trump, i am pro-exposure of people in power in general. it's a bit different when "investigations" start on "rumor" though.

on second note: you have not addressed anything else of what i said though. you chimed in about this being a witch-hunt, so i'd like to ask if you can pin why it wouldn't be.
do you believe this "investigation" started on "legal grounds"?

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on May 21 2019 03:54pm

quid-pro-quo.

this is what politics runs on. you think they send the "ask" in an email right when the give the favor? lol.

no. they wait. right when you forget, then they show up and remind u of the favor they did for you and say "hey it would be cool if x, y, and z happened. it would be a real shame if they found out we did that thing for you".

this is politics 101 man, COME ON!



what legal grounds? what are the legal requirements to start an investigation of this size? what did congress set as the purview of the investigation?

they let it all just happen, from the start. that's an issue, but stop saying things like "legal grounds". this was a political investigation with no legal bounds.

wheres the list saying what they can investigate? wheres the list saying who they can talk to? how much they can spend? how long it can take?

non existent.

but dont use words like "legal grounds". they're buzzwords. whomever is writing them that you're reading is selling you on complete horse shit. its that simple. the LACK of legal grounds that even apply here are the problem, whomever you're reading is just trying to paint the dems as criminals for exploiting it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 21 2019 03:58pm

no, you misunderstand, it's just because of circumstance of there not being any dirt in this instance.
i can understand favor for a favor, but you can also keep an eye on future favors. you didn't address anything else again

The ONLY hard evidence there was that Trump MAY have not been the right choice is this...














All the other "evidence" was either manufactured or obtained via illegal warrant.

address the pseudo legal language you and ghot are spewing?

I'll repeat myself until one of you is man enough to answer or tap the fuck out:






FISA courts have a low threshold for evidence. we know this. its not illegal to exploit that any more than it is to exploit anti-trump rhetoric to get an overpriced stupid investigation.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 21 2019 04:02pm

are they strictly criminal investigations are are we talking about the IG watchdog investigations? I haven't followed this whole conversation
but just because a 'loophole' exists that allows someone to do it legally, doesn't mean it can't be investigated as ethical abuses that would justify disciplinary action and correcting the loophole, which is purpose enough to investigate
that's what OIG horowitz has been up to, at least