Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 14 Sep 2018 4:12 pm » wrote:

Misty » 14 Sep 2018 4:02 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 07 Sep 2018 6:14 pm » wrote:This only reveals how desperate and dishonest Mueller is.
When Obama and Hillary Clinton massively violated campaign election laws, was anyone indicted?

So what's stopping Jeff Sessions or Christopher Wray from investigating and/or indicting them now Jackass?
Are these two Trump appointees also part of the Swamp?
You sound like an idiot.

Because it's almost never an indictable offense, wackjob, unless you're a Trump associate or an opponent of Obama like Dinesh D'Souza.

Misty » 14 Sep 2018 4:11 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 14 Sep 2018 2:58 pm » wrote:As opposed to a violent rapist that your party adulates?

For whom you told years of lies?

Hey, if you want to keep making these comparisons, I'm more than happy to.

I know you will because you can't defend the ****** Grabber president, so you choose to engage in blatant whataboutism.

Termin8tor » 14 Sep 2018 8:58 pm » wrote:I have defended Trump, because that was voluntary behavior between two consenting adults.

"They let me."

Termin8tor » 14 Sep 2018 8:58 pm » wrote:Did Juanita Broaddrick let Clinton violently rape her, psychopath?

Misty » 14 Sep 2018 9:09 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 14 Sep 2018 8:58 pm » wrote:I have defended Trump, because that was voluntary behavior between two consenting adults.

"They let me."

Did Juanita Broaddrick let Clinton violently rape her, psychopath?

So you believe the chronic liar and not the more than a dozen women who said that they didn't 'let' him?
It was against their will, jackass.
That is sexual assault.

Seems like you only have sympathy for Bubba's victims.
You believe the one woman who accuses Clinton and dismiss the dozen or more who accuse Trump.

# sycophantic lickspittle

Misty » 14 Sep 2018 9:09 pm » wrote:Seems like you only have sympathy for Bubba's victims....

# sycophantic lickspittle

...Miss Broaddrick and her so-called witnesses were likely on Richard Mellon Scaife's payroll

Ricky Tavy » 14 Sep 2018 9:19 pm » wrote:
You did crawl out of your hole in full mouth-foaming mode, however. Usually it takes you a few humiliations to get this hysterical.

Misty » 31 Aug 2018 4:33 pm » wrote:Another criminal.

The inauguration raised way more money than they spent, so what happened to the rest of it?
Looks like Mueller is on the case.

In the Russia Probe, It’s ‘Qui S’excuse S’accuse’
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
The FBI strained to make a case on Donald Trump even as they were burying a daunting criminal case on Mrs. Clinton.

The FBI and the Obama Justice Department launched an investigation of the Democrats’ political adversaries, and they used Clinton-campaign-generated, foreign-provided innuendo to do it. They strained to make a case on Donald Trump even as they were burying a daunting criminal case on Mrs. Clinton. As I have previously explained, moreover, the president was misled about his status: not only was he a suspect in the investigation, he was the main suspect.

The main suspect in an investigation with no crime.

Before we unwind that, let’s dispense with the tired claim that the Obama administration did not really spy on Trump and his campaign. Every one of the four FISA warrant applications, after describing Russia’s cyberespionage attack on the 2016 election, makes the following assertion (after two redacted lines):

the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 election were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.

“Candidate #1” is Trump. See, the upper hierarchies of the FBI and the Justice Department believed the Steele dossier — or at least they said they did. The operating assumption of the Obama administration in the months before the 2016 election was that the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking conspiracy. Otherwise, the FBI would not have made this representation to the FISA court four times, including twice after President Trump was already in office....

the FBI and Obama’s DOJ took bold risks because they’d further convinced themselves that there was no risk at all: Everything was in the black box of classified intelligence and, besides, Hillary was a shoo-in to win. No one would ever be any the wiser....

let’s stick with the essential point: The use of counterintelligence authorities to conduct a criminal investigation of Donald Trump in the absence of a predicate crime.
We’ve had a lot to say about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s failure to comply with federal regulations that require showing a factual basis for a criminal investigation — i.e., reason to believe that a crime was committed — before appointing a special counsel, Robert Mueller. But Rosenstein was just riding the tide. The FISA warrants show that this practice of launching a criminal investigation in the absence of a crime long predated Rosenstein and Mueller. It was the modus operandi of the Trump-Russia investigation from Day One, when Obama’s Justice Department and the FBI first targeted the Trump campaign.....

The Purpose of the Authorities Requested

The FBI’s foreign intelligence goals for this investigation are set forth in the certification of the Executive Branch official contained herein. However, the authorities requested in this application may produce information and material which might, when evaluated by prosecutive authorities, constitute evidence of a violation of United States law, and this investigation may result in an eventual criminal prosecution of the target. Nevertheless, as discussed in the certification, at least a significant purpose of this request for [REDACTED] is to collect foreign intelligence information as part of the FBI’s investigation of this target.

This is so matter-of-factly brazen, buried on page 41 of the 54-page application, that we can easily miss its significance.

Exception for Inadvertent Discovery of Criminal Evidence

FISA authorities are not criminal-law authorities. It is not just that FISA is not designed to ferret out evidence of crime; it is not permitted to be used for that purpose. FISA’s objective is the collection of foreign intelligence, the gathering of information about the actions and intentions of foreign powers that may threaten American interests.

The Page warrant application implies that it is a standard part of the process that “prosecutive authorities” — i.e., prosecutors, criminal investigators, grand juries — peruse FISA evidence to determine whether crimes have been committed. Not true. Prosecutors normally have nothing to do with FISA. Counterintelligence is not “prosecutive”; it aims to gather information about other countries and their operatives, not make criminal cases.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... plication/

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 11:41 am » wrote:ROFL....The right is trying to discredit Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with lies and FAKE News.

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 11:41 am » wrote:ROFL....The right is trying to discredit Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with lies and FAKE News.

Breaking: Debra Katz, Attorney for Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford, Was Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign
by Kristinn Taylor September 19, 2018 112 Comments
831Share86TweetEmail
A document from the Podesta files at Wikileaks shows that Debra Katz, the attorney for Kavanau
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... -campaign/

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 2:27 pm » wrote:

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 11:41 am » wrote:ROFL....The right is trying to discredit Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with lies and FAKE News.

Can you explain why she told her therapist that four men were involved, but now says there were two?
Why she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name in that session?
Why she can't remember what house it happened in?
Why she can't remember what year it occurred in?
Why she hired a leftist lawyer who worked to discredit Clinton's victims?

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 2:27 pm » wrote:Very, very strange behavior of someone who suffered a sexual assault.

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 2:51 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 2:27 pm » wrote:Can you explain why she told her therapist that four men were involved, but now says there were two?

Why she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name in that session?

Why she can't remember what house it happened in?

Why she can't remember what year it occurred in?

Why she hired a leftist lawyer who worked to discredit Clinton's victims? Very, very strange behavior of someone who suffered a sexual assault.

You expect me to take your word for any of that?

Isn't it ironic that the woman you are accusing of lying is the one who took a polygraph and the one calling for the FBI to investigate?

If she were lying why would she do that?

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 2:51 pm » wrote:You mean strange behavior like how Juanita Broaddrick attended a fundraiser for Bill Clinton a couple of weeks after she said he violently raped her?

....Miss Broaddrick and her so-called witnesses were likely on Richard Mellon Scaife's payroll

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 3:06 pm » wrote:

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 2:51 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 2:27 pm » wrote:Can you explain why she told her therapist that four men were involved, but now says there were two?
Why she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name in that session?
Why she can't remember what house it happened in?
Why she can't remember what year it occurred in?
Why she hired a leftist lawyer who worked to discredit Clinton's victims?
Very, very strange behavior of someone who suffered a sexual assault.

You expect me to take your word for any of that?

I sourced all of that.

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 3:06 pm » wrote:It's almost all common knowledge......

Misty » 19 Sep 2018 3:55 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 19 Sep 2018 2:27 pm » wrote:Can you explain why she told her therapist that four men were involved, but now says there were two?

Why she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name in that session?

Why she can't remember what house it happened in?

Why she can't remember what year it occurred in?

Where? Not here.

So which is it?
You sourced it, or it's almost (weasel word) common knowledge?

For someone who constantly accuses me of spouting talking points it sure does look like you have that list well rehearsed.
I know that you have posted it in two of my threads, so how many other threads have you posted it in?

Should I check your digest?

Mike Davis, the chief counsel on nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Chuck Grassley, is being criticized for two tweets he posted and then deleted that called into question his objectivity regarding the sexual assault allegation that has been made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh," read screengrabs of a deleted tweet sent from Davis' account at 10:22 p.m. EDT on Wednesday.

About two hours later, Davis sent another tweet reading, "I personally questioned Judge Kavanaugh under penalty of felony and 5 years imprisonment, if he lies. I'm waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys, who can't find time between TV appearances to get back to me."



Those tweets sparked an uproar as some Twitter users interpreted them as evidence that Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, will not be given a fair hearing if she accepts Grassley's invitation to testify about her accusation before the committee on Monday.

After deleting those tweets and briefly locking his account, Davis sent another one on Thursday morning that was meant "to clear up any confusion."

"I was referring to Democrats' partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee's thorough and fair investigation," he wrote.

"I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misrepresentation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 366391002/

Misty » 20 Sep 2018 9:28 pm » wrote:

Misty » 20 Sep 2018 9:28 pm » wrote: