I can't believe the Democrats are so clueless that they don't even understand why the FBI started the investigation. The Steele dossier was used fraudulently in the courts. It's not the reason the FBI started the investigation. I'm trying to keep my language civil.
This was an FBI investigation that threw people in jail for legal infractions. Everyone arrested had violated a law. They were all legal criminals. If the FBI digs deep enough, they will find something. But why did they start the investigation and what crime were they trying to solve?
Do Democrats have a clue? Or are they just happy that some Republicans were thrown in jail?
Limited appears to think that this is somehow important, but I fail to understand why. Who cares why it was started? It's ancient history now. The Mueller Investigation sadly failed to result in our former president being tossed out of the White House on his keester, but why cry over spilled milk? The important thing now is to make sure he never again gets anywhere close to it.
Ever hear of "fighting the last war" syndrome? MAGA Republicans may revel in endlessly relitigating the past, but the rest of America has moved on.
It's important because the current political argument is whether the losing side should accept the results of an election. It's also important because we were lied to about very important things. Those lies came from a politicized FBI, which is far more dangerous than the goofy rioters on 1/6.
It's also important because the people in power continue to lie about it and their clueless followers believe the rioters at the Capitol building are a bigger threat to our system of government than using the entire power of the federal government against your opponents. It's not the last war, it's the current war and our democracy is at stake. By the way, do the uninformed Democrats know the only person who was killed at the Capitol building on 1/6, and why she were killed?
Look, I don't want Trump back. And I don't want Biden supporters thrown in jail for trivial reasons simply because of their political ideas. I don't want to be like the corrupt Democrats who can't handle losing an election. Or even winning one for that matter. I don't think the opposing party should hunt down for destruction their political opponents using all the power of the government. It's evil, and something we better get right.
Sometimes I think it would be fun to be a Republican Crazy Star. Who cares about January 6th. Unfortunately it didn't save us from the current doofus in office so why worry about it. If it got rid of the Biden crime family and put Trump back in office, now that would have been a great achievement. Otherwise quit talking about it.
>...their clueless followers believe the rioters at the Capitol building are a bigger threat to our system of government than using the entire power of the federal government against your opponents
Good grief, it isn't the rioters who are a threat to our system, it's:
* a president who was told by almost all his advisers that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, who lost 60 court cases trying to prove it (with zero evidence provided at any of them; massive abuse of the legal system) yet who continued to spread that lie and millions continued to believe it * a president who attempted to replace his AG with one who would spread his lies about voter fraud * a president who, having been told by his advisers that there was no evidence of widespread fraud, nonetheless asked the DOJ to "just SAY the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me" * a president who tried to pressure his VP into rejecting electoral votes, a power the VP does not have * a president who tried to pressure various swing state election officials into "finding" enough votes to put him over the top * a president who created fake electoral voters to send to Congress, falsely certifying that he had won (these people are no under criminal investigation) * a president who riled up his follows with his lies, tell them to "fight like hell" on January 6th, way too late to "fight" in a democracy (the time to fight in our democracy was early November) but not too late to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which the mob then proceeded to do so, many of whom are now in prison * a president who stood by for hours watching the violent mob, knowing they had weapons, demanding the metal detectors be removed and to let them through; because, of course, he knew they were fighting FOR HIM in his attempt to keep himself in office
The above events were an attempt by a narcissistic sociopath, unable to accept that he lost, to keep himself in power despite losing the election, which would literally have been the end of the American experiment. If you don't think a president keeping himself in power despite losing the election is one of the greatest threats to this country, then what country do you want? You want one where our leader just declares himself so?
As for using the federal government...Trump stole top secret documents he had no right to take and left them unsecured at his golf club. In fact, the FBI (headed by a Trump appointee and registered Republican) bent over backwards to allow him the dignity of returning them quietly, for over a year. He not only refused to do so, he had his lawyer lie and sign a sworn affidavit that all classified material had been returned. As many have pointed out, any normal person who had done this would now be in prison, for years. The fact that he's not (yet?) proves that government is trying their best to treat him with kid gloves.
Again, every informed Republican knows that narrative backwards and forwards. The Left's narratives make for amusing Saturday morning breakfast conversations with my friends and sometimes even very humorous conversation with Mrs. Perspective when she's in the mood to talk politics.
Do you know the origin and purpose of the Mueller investigation? If so, you are a rare Democrat. Keep the comments coming, we really enjoy your narrative. There has to be some levity in politics.
The Left has figured out that being offended and changing definitions is more persuasive to the uninformed than facts. As Victor said, there are no right wing or left wing facts, there are only the facts.
Unless you are offended, then you automatically win!
>Again, every informed Republican knows that narrative backwards and forwards
Right and you just don't care. David Frum, himself a conservative, summed it up: "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
I mean, it makes sense. Those who supported the ancien regime in France sat on the right of the court, and those who supported democracy sat on the left. You guys WANT a monarchy. Not always blatantly, but it's the driving force. Again it always boils down to social hierarchy: for or against.
The (more than) half the country that doesn't want a monarchy just now has to figure out how to live alongside you people who do.
BTW your dehumanizing generalization of "the Left" is duly noted. Gives you a nice Other to fear and hate. There's no such thing as "the Left." There are your neighbors, and they have varying degrees of leftwing and rightwing (i.e. democratic and monarchist) views. Throw in the recent Qanon/Pizzagate "DemonRATS eat babies" conspiracy theories and you've got an almost exact repeat of the Blood Libel. I'm sure we all know where this leads, if unchecked...
There has to be some contradictory force for increasing government power, spending, and influence in daily life. Perhaps it's the Catholics, perhaps it's the conservative Evangelical church. I am sure it is not the Left.
Miller, I could tell you a great many stories of families providing education and well being to their children without the callous, expensive, bureaucratic public school system. I've decided to pay for them because they can't imagine another way.
My original question was how did the Mueller investigation start? The answer from Victor was it wasn't the Steel dossier. This answer deserves scorn. But I will let it go.
I ask the question because I want to know if comments are based on knowledge of current events. If someone pretends to understand a topic and can't answer a simple question about the topic then they are easily dismissed. Thank you for the confirmation of your lunacy. It really does make for fun Saturday breakfast talk with my friends!
It was the major news topic for the first three years of the last administration. If you couldn't follow that story and answer a basic question when it was over, then your views are only fodder for breakfast.
Ancient history is Homer. The last administration is relevant to the events of today. I can answer questions about Watergate. Compared to Mueller, Nixon must be parietal art to the uninformed.
It's the genetic fallacy. Regardless of how it started, Mueller concluded that the Trump administration welcomed the interference in the election from a foreign power, and that Trump subsequently obstructed the investigation. Barr then ran interference to protect Trump with his press conference which lied about the conclusions of the report, and Trump proved one of his main principles which is that if you repeat a lie over and over and over and over and over and over, people will come to believe it. He was literally saying "no collusion no collusion" to the press as a greeting instead of "hi," and so his lies took root.
Absolutely infuriating. But that's what you guys want, right? To own the libs? To piss off half of your fellow citizens?
Nope. I don't care to own anyone. That's a Democrat's thing ending in 1865. I'm trying to get you guys to acknowledge the first fact. After that understanding we can go to the second fact. After that we can start to examine the narrative. But, uninformed (I'll try not to accuse of dishonesty) people who can't answer a simple question, are hard to converse with.
It's true the left and the right live with different narratives. It's true that I live in California where the left narrative controls the dialogue. I'm trying to introduce you to a different narrative starting with the first fact. What was the origin of the Mueller investigation? That's the starting point where our two narratives can be compared. It's really not that complicated
If you claim to know the answer, then why don't you just tell us? Otherwise, your motivation behind the question is highly suspect. It's what Sarah Palin used to call a "gotcha" question. Sorry, but I have no desire to play that game.
Tell us what you think the "origin" was, or else drop it.
No "research" is necessary to know that orange man is bad, just as I don't need to research anything to know the sun is up. You just need to be aware of what's going on.
Limited Perspective, What was the origin of the Mueller investigation?
When Jeff Sessions assigned a special prosecutor (to look into possible Russian interference, IIRC, but I'm not sure about Session's reasons). That's how all special prosecutor's get started.
Now, if you meant the FBI investigation into Donald Trump, my recollection is that someone tipped off the FBI after Papadopoulos said something indiscreet a few weeks before the Steele dossier showed up. That's what you started asking about, but then you shifted over to "Mueller investigation", which was not the same thing.
Those lies came from a politicized FBI, which is far more dangerous than the goofy rioters on 1/6.
The FBI has, overall, been a force for conservative political positions. I don't believe it turned on a dime in 2016. Comey was a life-long Republican, as is Wray. Comey could hardly have tanked Clinton's campaign any harder than he did. Trump is being investigated despite the conservative bias of the FBI, because they also still believe in the rule of law.
The Left has figured out that being offended and changing definitions ...
Cats have figured out that fish taste good. You still don't see herds of cats making nets to catch them.
Origins can be important. Sometimes critical to understanding an event. The attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th 1941, is not the whole story for the United States involvement in world War II. I have read several books about the Japanese side of the war. But someone who wants to speak about America's involvement in World War II, ending with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, has to have some basic knowledge.
There's the Boston massacre prior to 1776, the commandeering of American ships by the British prior to 1812, the firing on fort Sumter prior to the first battle of Manassas and so on.
I don't want to make a long comment because if you are like me, you read the first three lines of Martin's comments, know you've heard that a few hundred times and skip the rest.
Pretty Good One Brow. We were told it was Papadopoulos.
The reason the FBI gave for starting the Mueller investigation (the big lie) was George Papadopoulos in a bar threw out a rumor the Russians had hacked Mrs. Clinton's emails. The rumor was told to an Australian official who contacted the FBI. The FBI launched a multimillion dollar investigation based on a half-inebriated non-paid volunteer to the Trump campaign throwing out a rumor in a bar. That's the reason they gave us for three years. If the FBI were interested in an investigation, they would have interviewed the poor sap and realized he knew nothing. But they decided because of his political position, they would get him on something. They threw him in jail and you can look up the charges. Nothing to do with Russia.
Just think about that. Does the FBI launch investigations on people throwing out rumors in a bar? It's absurd on its face. But, as crazy star says, "Orange man bad" so it don't make him no nevermind. Your government, your FBI started a political persecution based on a dude throwing out a rumor in a bar. If you believe that, your comments are worthless to the public discussion. And if you think it's okay for the FBI to do political persecution because "Orange Man Bad" you are unamerican.
The real reason, after three years of lying to us, we found out under Durham. Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia. It was all a lie concocted by corrupt Dem's who couldn't handle the results of the election. This is the tip of the iceburg on the corruption. Feel free to comment and let me know if you are able to handle the next question.
Unrelated question, how many of Trump's political opponents went to jail for minor infractions? How many of Hillary's political opponents went to jail for minor infractions?
Of course we do. It was Ashli Babbitt, who was tragically shot and killed because she had been duped by Trump's Big Lie into believing the election had been stolen (which it was most definitely not), while in the act of violently breaking into the US Capitol with the expressed intent of murdering the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and any other elected representative who failed to go along with Trump's coup attempt.
Anyone who doubts the above written is definitely living in a bubble.
She was shot for trespassing Star. That's a misdemeanor. I know crazy people imagine all kinds of motivations on others. That's the psychosis of the left, they imagine what other people are thinking. Her crime was trespassing and she was shot without warning by a large police officer who could have easily subdued this 125 lb lady with no criminal record.
She was shot in act of participating in an armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States. Her motivation was to destroy our 250 year old democracy, replacing it with an authoritarian dictatorship run by a certifiably insane pathological liar and criminal narcissist. Sorry if you can't handle the truth, and prefer "alternative facts". Next you'll be saying she was merely a peaceful tourist who wanted to admire the statuary in the rotunda.
When you're part of a violent mob, individual motives are irrelevant. What matters is the intention of the mob.
Likewise, when defending yourself against a violent assault, you don't waste time worrying about what this or that individual is thinking - you stop the attack.
What? You think that while Ashli and the mob were attempting to break into the congressional chambers with the stated intent of murdering our elected representatives, that the Capitol Police should first conduct a psychological examination of the individual attackers before defending our democracy?
Don't get me wrong. I think Ashli's death was a terrible and totally unnecessary tragedy. But the people solely responsible for it were those (and one person in particular) who poisoned her mind with a steady diet of lies. Our former president ought to be charged with at least manslaughter over her death.
I'm thankful I don't agree with you that people should be imprisoned and murdered for political protest. I understand how you have been worked up by lies to excuse murder, violence, and imprisonment of your political opponents. You have been poisoned by the left for hate against an imaginary threat. I don't blame you for excusing murder. You are a product of the left's imagination.
If you think as a mortal man that you can read into the thoughts and motivations of a person using terms like, racist, sexist, homophobia, as a key to understanding someone's motives and actions, you have accepted the propaganda of the left.
Limited Perspective, She was shot for trespassing Star.
Trespassing is when you cross a non-physical boundary to step on someone's property. Babbitt was part of a group engaged in breaking and entering. Most conservatives believe in the Castle Doctrine, and that you are justified to shoot someone for breaking and entering even if they are unarmed (Perhaps you don't?). Under the usual doctrine, her shooting was justified if it was a person's home, place of business, or any other place she didn't have any right to be.
If you believe it was wrong to shoot Babbitt, then (if being consistent) you would believe it was wrong for any property owner to defend their property during pretty much any protest. That doesn't sound like you.
The reason the FBI gave for starting the Mueller investigation (the big lie) was George Papadopoulos in a bar threw out a rumor the Russians had hacked Mrs. Clinton's emails. ... The real reason, after three years of lying to us, we found out under Durham. Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia.
Papadopolous did his bragging in April 2016. Sussman met Baker in September. Your timeline is all screwed up.
Babbit, an unarmed trespasser was shot dead by a police officer twice her size without warning for a misdemeanor. Seems One Brow has changed the definition of a justified murder of an unarmed person by police. My thoughts on self-defense are about defending your home, a very different circumstance than a trained police officer.
Babbitt was not an "unarmed trespasser". She was an active participant in a violent insurrection, intent on overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States.
Limited Perspective, Babbit, an unarmed trespasser was shot dead by a police officer twice her size without warning for a misdemeanor.
1) The officer size doesn't matter, because he's not big enought to fight off 6 people, and Babbitt was leading the charge of several others to follow. If you don't see that from the video, you are seriously deluding yourself. 2) Near as I can tell, Babbitt's crime was burglary in the second degree, which is a felony. You could also make a case for Terrorism -- "Influence the policy or conduct of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion".
Seems One Brow has changed the definition of a justified murder of an unarmed person by police.
Seems Limited Perspective is too much of a coward or too self-blinded to renounce the castle doctrine to to acknowledge it was a justified shooting.
My thoughts on self-defense are about defending your home, a very different circumstance than a trained police officer.
Trained police officers are entitled to the exact same rights in defending their home as you or I. Security personnel/officers also possess these rights in defending when in other sorts of buildings.
The mob was not unarmed. She was a member of the violent mob. Why can you not accept this? Defending congress from attack is not murder, not by any definition.
>>>Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia. It was all a lie concocted by corrupt Dem's who couldn't handle the results of the election.
In August of 2016 Sussman came across evidence that a Trump server was communicating with Alfa Bank in Russia, and decided to leak this information to the press. This was done with Clinton's approval, because why WOULDN'T she think such information was important for the press to look into, after her email hack in July of 2016?
A reporter (Eric Lichtblau at the NY Times) thought there was enough there to be a serious story, and spoke with Alfa Bank about it, after which the communication between the Trump server and Alfa Bank suddenly stopped. He was preparing his story, but then...
THE FBI ASKED THE NY TIMES TO NIX THE STORY! The "corrupt" FBI, headed by registered Republicans, helped to nix the Trump/Alfa Bank story, followed closely by Comey famously announcing an investigation into Hillary's emails, thus helping Trump and sinking Clinton!!!
Meanwhile, the Alfa Bank investigation went quiet, and to this day nobody knows what that communication was. Could have been innocuous, such as DNS lookups; we just don't know. Franklin Foer took a deep dive into the story, pros and cons.
So a bunch of leftist Hillary supporters reported to the leftist press that the FBI was informed of the "Alpha Bank communication with Trump servers" before the election and to this day, "we just don't know" from 2016.
Even after the Mueller report, after the first impeachment attempt, after the second impeachment attempt, after the Mara Logo raid.
Could it just have been a dirty Hillary campaign trick? No. She is as pure as the driven snow...LOL
Limited Perspective In world do live in? A burly 250 lb man can shoot dead 125 lb girl because he felt threatened? You live in a different universe than I do.
When she's the first person in a line of more than a dozen, from a group that just violently broke through a barrier and are screaming for more violence, absolutely.
Why do you keep focusing on Babbitt, as if she was alone, and on the weight? If a 300-lb man had been the first person through the window, would you then say the shooting was justified? 200-lbs? How many people does the guard have to let inside the chamber before he's allowed to defend it?
Limited Perspective, Police shooting citizens in the face to prove they are not cowards.
As opposed to bravery of shooting Jermaine Petit while he was running away, after saying to each other he didn't have a gun. How many words will you spend on Petit, who committed no crimes at all before police came at him.
She was unarmed.
That doesn't make her innocent. She was part of a crowd breaking through a locked door.
The Papadopolous excuse was a lie, ...
Yet, you acknowledge the incident happened, and the investigation was underway before Sussman talked to the FBI.
... the Sussmann accusation was a fraud.
Unverifed, sure. How could Sussman know it was not true?
The Mueller investigation was political persecution by the corrupt Dems.
I don't know what "leftist" means. The NY Times ran breathtaking story after breathtaking story about "Her Emails (c)" and nary a single story about the Russian connections with Trump. So I guess "leftist" means "hurt Hillary and help Donald...?"
Either way, the point is that for all of Limited Perspective's talk about "narrative"...indeed, the narrative that the Sussman thing was a "corrupt Democrat plot" against Perpetual Victim Trump is shown to be nonsense, if you actually look at the details instead of the garbage tabloids. The reality is almost the opposite. Not surprising as Comey and Mueller are both registered Republicans, and the current director of the FBI is not only a registered Republican but also a Trump appointee.
Don't worry about it, Martin. After struggling to understand what was meant by the term, I finally settled on the following definition: Whatever Limited and bmiller disagree with.
It's a convenient shorthand. Requires no thought, no reasoning. Just, "I don't like it, so it's leftist (shudder), and therefore evil."
So what do all you Trump apologists have to say, now that we know he stole nuclear related documents of the very highest classification? Oh, and lied about having them when his lawyers claimed they had returned "everything"?
I usually don't make predictions One Brow, but I'm guessing the officer who shot Petit will be prosecuted and Mr Petit's family will receive millions of dollars. As opposed to the officer who shot the young lady at the Capitol. Let me know if I am wrong.
By your definition, all those videos of people smashing in windows and going into stores to take out loot, should have been mowed down with bullets by the police. Thank God the police don't have your perspective.
There are many definitions of being a leftist. One is the use of the government's power to suppress your political rivals. Star and Martin have that bloodthirsty instinct which makes them leftist. More definitions to come. But being bloodthirsty is at the top.
Limited Perspective, I usually don't make predictions One Brow, but I'm guessing the officer who shot Petit will be prosecuted and Mr Petit's family will receive millions of dollars. As opposed to the officer who shot the young lady at the Capitol. Let me know if I am wrong.
*chortle* *snicker* I predict that absolutely more serious than a few day off will happen to these officers.
By your definition, all those videos of people smashing in windows and going into stores to take out loot, should have been mowed down with bullets by the police. Thank God the police don't have your perspective.
If there were people inside the stores, said people would have been within their rights to do so. "Should have"? I would disagree there, assuming if we are discussing property damage only, with no people on the premises. They should have been arrested and charged.
I find myself slipping into insanity in the back and forth here. I'm going to check out for a while. Perhaps we could have had some interesting conversations under different circumstances, but this is not healthy for me.
I think your problem is assuming your opponents are interested in discussing what is true rather than telling you that Orange Man Bad....over and over and over and over....
I'm interested in discussing what is true. That's what I did above where I described what really happened with the FBI and Sussman, in contradiction to the tabloid narrative that the FBI is corrupt democrats.
I can't believe the Democrats are so clueless that they don't even understand why the FBI started the investigation. The Steele dossier was used fraudulently in the courts. It's not the reason the FBI started the investigation. I'm trying to keep my language civil.
ReplyDeleteThis was an FBI investigation that threw people in jail for legal infractions. Everyone arrested had violated a law. They were all legal criminals. If the FBI digs deep enough, they will find something. But why did they start the investigation and what crime were they trying to solve?
ReplyDeleteDo Democrats have a clue? Or are they just happy that some Republicans were thrown in jail?
That's all.
Limited appears to think that this is somehow important, but I fail to understand why. Who cares why it was started? It's ancient history now. The Mueller Investigation sadly failed to result in our former president being tossed out of the White House on his keester, but why cry over spilled milk? The important thing now is to make sure he never again gets anywhere close to it.
ReplyDeleteEver hear of "fighting the last war" syndrome? MAGA Republicans may revel in endlessly relitigating the past, but the rest of America has moved on.
It's important because the current political argument is whether the losing side should accept the results of an election. It's also important because we were lied to about very important things. Those lies came from a politicized FBI, which is far more dangerous than the goofy rioters on 1/6.
ReplyDeleteIt's also important because the people in power continue to lie about it and their clueless followers believe the rioters at the Capitol building are a bigger threat to our system of government than using the entire power of the federal government against your opponents. It's not the last war, it's the current war and our democracy is at stake. By the way, do the uninformed Democrats know the only person who was killed at the Capitol building on 1/6, and why she were killed?
Look, I don't want Trump back. And I don't want Biden supporters thrown in jail for trivial reasons simply because of their political ideas. I don't want to be like the corrupt Democrats who can't handle losing an election. Or even winning one for that matter. I don't think the opposing party should hunt down for destruction their political opponents using all the power of the government. It's evil, and something we better get right.
Sometimes I think it would be fun to be a Republican Crazy Star. Who cares about January 6th. Unfortunately it didn't save us from the current doofus in office so why worry about it. If it got rid of the Biden crime family and put Trump back in office, now that would have been a great achievement. Otherwise quit talking about it.
ReplyDeleteIn commemoration of the passing of Mikihail Gorbachev.
ReplyDelete>...their clueless followers believe the rioters at the Capitol building are a bigger threat to our system of government than using the entire power of the federal government against your opponents
ReplyDeleteGood grief, it isn't the rioters who are a threat to our system, it's:
* a president who was told by almost all his advisers that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, who lost 60 court cases trying to prove it (with zero evidence provided at any of them; massive abuse of the legal system) yet who continued to spread that lie and millions continued to believe it
* a president who attempted to replace his AG with one who would spread his lies about voter fraud
* a president who, having been told by his advisers that there was no evidence of widespread fraud, nonetheless asked the DOJ to "just SAY the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me"
* a president who tried to pressure his VP into rejecting electoral votes, a power the VP does not have
* a president who tried to pressure various swing state election officials into "finding" enough votes to put him over the top
* a president who created fake electoral voters to send to Congress, falsely certifying that he had won (these people are no under criminal investigation)
* a president who riled up his follows with his lies, tell them to "fight like hell" on January 6th, way too late to "fight" in a democracy (the time to fight in our democracy was early November) but not too late to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which the mob then proceeded to do so, many of whom are now in prison
* a president who stood by for hours watching the violent mob, knowing they had weapons, demanding the metal detectors be removed and to let them through; because, of course, he knew they were fighting FOR HIM in his attempt to keep himself in office
The above events were an attempt by a narcissistic sociopath, unable to accept that he lost, to keep himself in power despite losing the election, which would literally have been the end of the American experiment. If you don't think a president keeping himself in power despite losing the election is one of the greatest threats to this country, then what country do you want? You want one where our leader just declares himself so?
As for using the federal government...Trump stole top secret documents he had no right to take and left them unsecured at his golf club. In fact, the FBI (headed by a Trump appointee and registered Republican) bent over backwards to allow him the dignity of returning them quietly, for over a year. He not only refused to do so, he had his lawyer lie and sign a sworn affidavit that all classified material had been returned. As many have pointed out, any normal person who had done this would now be in prison, for years. The fact that he's not (yet?) proves that government is trying their best to treat him with kid gloves.
Preach, Brother Martin! Amen!
ReplyDelete(No sarcasm - I agree with every word.)
Martin,
ReplyDeleteAgain, every informed Republican knows that narrative backwards and forwards. The Left's narratives make for amusing Saturday morning breakfast conversations with my friends and sometimes even very humorous conversation with Mrs. Perspective when she's in the mood to talk politics.
Do you know the origin and purpose of the Mueller investigation? If so, you are a rare Democrat. Keep the comments coming, we really enjoy your narrative. There has to be some levity in politics.
He left out how super-Trump overpowered the Secret Service agent driving the beast and steered it back to the Capitol.
ReplyDeleteMiller,
ReplyDeleteThe Left has figured out that being offended and changing definitions is more persuasive to the uninformed than facts. As Victor said, there are no right wing or left wing facts, there are only the facts.
Unless you are offended, then you automatically win!
>Again, every informed Republican knows that narrative backwards and forwards
ReplyDeleteRight and you just don't care. David Frum, himself a conservative, summed it up: "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
Every behavior you guys engage in just confirms for me that what this guy says about conservatism is absolutely accurate:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
I mean, it makes sense. Those who supported the ancien regime in France sat on the right of the court, and those who supported democracy sat on the left. You guys WANT a monarchy. Not always blatantly, but it's the driving force. Again it always boils down to social hierarchy: for or against.
The (more than) half the country that doesn't want a monarchy just now has to figure out how to live alongside you people who do.
BTW your dehumanizing generalization of "the Left" is duly noted. Gives you a nice Other to fear and hate. There's no such thing as "the Left." There are your neighbors, and they have varying degrees of leftwing and rightwing (i.e. democratic and monarchist) views. Throw in the recent Qanon/Pizzagate "DemonRATS eat babies" conspiracy theories and you've got an almost exact repeat of the Blood Libel. I'm sure we all know where this leads, if unchecked...
The perennial human saga, I guess.
I dunno. Starhopper, your "Preach brother" compatriot wants to return to the Holy Roman Empire.
ReplyDeleteAnd please stop eating babies.
Also. Don't listen to this guy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMartin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for some good material for Saturday breakfast. Do you know the origins and purpose of the Mueller investigation?
I have to admit my favorite links here come from brother Miller.
ReplyDeleteWell, Miller's a Roman and I'm a different kind of Catholic (Anglican) so I don't want to give this wayward Christian too much credit.
ReplyDeleteMiller, I know you are a Christian, but come back to the true expression of Christianity and the Anglican Church. I'm just asking brother.
"[Starhopper] wants to return to the Holy Roman Empire"
ReplyDeleteUnapologetically, yes. I do.
I thought I remembered you were originally a Catholic.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. When we die we will all be ;-)
Miller, You know that last comment was horsing around right? I'm pretty close to joining the Roman Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteYou mean close you're to death?
ReplyDeleteJust joking. Welcome home (when it happens).
There has to be some contradictory force for increasing government power, spending, and influence in daily life. Perhaps it's the Catholics, perhaps it's the conservative Evangelical church. I am sure it is not the Left.
ReplyDeleteI hope it will be a return to the idea of the family as the most important unit in society.
ReplyDeleteAttack on the Government? Not according to the Left.
ReplyDeleteMiller, I could tell you a great many stories of families providing education and well being to their children without the callous, expensive, bureaucratic public school system. I've decided to pay for them because they can't imagine another way.
ReplyDeleteMy original question was how did the Mueller investigation start? The answer from Victor was it wasn't the Steel dossier. This answer deserves scorn. But I will let it go.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the origin of the Mueller investigation?
Who cares? For reasons I cannot fathom, you obviously do. (I doubt anyone else is losing any sleep over it.) So you tell us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYeah, tell us all about the "oranges" of the Mueller investigation:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUPsNgmXR7M
I ask the question because I want to know if comments are based on knowledge of current events. If someone pretends to understand a topic and can't answer a simple question about the topic then they are easily dismissed. Thank you for the confirmation of your lunacy. It really does make for fun Saturday breakfast talk with my friends!
ReplyDeleteBut the Mueller Investigation is NOT "current events" - it's ancient history.
ReplyDeleteIt was the major news topic for the first three years of the last administration. If you couldn't follow that story and answer a basic question when it was over, then your views are only fodder for breakfast.
ReplyDeleteAncient history is Homer. The last administration is relevant to the events of today. I can answer questions about Watergate. Compared to Mueller, Nixon must be parietal art to the uninformed.
It's the genetic fallacy. Regardless of how it started, Mueller concluded that the Trump administration welcomed the interference in the election from a foreign power, and that Trump subsequently obstructed the investigation. Barr then ran interference to protect Trump with his press conference which lied about the conclusions of the report, and Trump proved one of his main principles which is that if you repeat a lie over and over and over and over and over and over, people will come to believe it. He was literally saying "no collusion no collusion" to the press as a greeting instead of "hi," and so his lies took root.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely infuriating. But that's what you guys want, right? To own the libs? To piss off half of your fellow citizens?
Seems like a healthy country to me...
Nope. I don't care to own anyone. That's a Democrat's thing ending in 1865. I'm trying to get you guys to acknowledge the first fact. After that understanding we can go to the second fact. After that we can start to examine the narrative. But, uninformed (I'll try not to accuse of dishonesty) people who can't answer a simple question, are hard to converse with.
ReplyDeleteIt's true the left and the right live with different narratives. It's true that I live in California where the left narrative controls the dialogue. I'm trying to introduce you to a different narrative starting with the first fact. What was the origin of the Mueller investigation? That's the starting point where our two narratives can be compared. It's really not that complicated
If you claim to know the answer, then why don't you just tell us? Otherwise, your motivation behind the question is highly suspect. It's what Sarah Palin used to call a "gotcha" question. Sorry, but I have no desire to play that game.
ReplyDeleteTell us what you think the "origin" was, or else drop it.
I'll admit my childish toying with you guys. Forgive me Bob.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I do know the answer. I'll reply when I have time and you can look it up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's a gotcha question when you're put on the spot in front of the camera. It's not gotcha if you have plenty of time to look up a response.
ReplyDeleteIt's a gotcha question because they might actually have to do research and make a case rather than just yelling at you that "Orange Man Bad".
ReplyDeleteNo "research" is necessary to know that orange man is bad, just as I don't need to research anything to know the sun is up. You just need to be aware of what's going on.
ReplyDeleteLimited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteWhat was the origin of the Mueller investigation?
When Jeff Sessions assigned a special prosecutor (to look into possible Russian interference, IIRC, but I'm not sure about Session's reasons). That's how all special prosecutor's get started.
Now, if you meant the FBI investigation into Donald Trump, my recollection is that someone tipped off the FBI after Papadopoulos said something indiscreet a few weeks before the Steele dossier showed up. That's what you started asking about, but then you shifted over to "Mueller investigation", which was not the same thing.
Those lies came from a politicized FBI, which is far more dangerous than the goofy rioters on 1/6.
The FBI has, overall, been a force for conservative political positions. I don't believe it turned on a dime in 2016. Comey was a life-long Republican, as is Wray. Comey could hardly have tanked Clinton's campaign any harder than he did. Trump is being investigated despite the conservative bias of the FBI, because they also still believe in the rule of law.
The Left has figured out that being offended and changing definitions ...
Cats have figured out that fish taste good. You still don't see herds of cats making nets to catch them.
Origins can be important. Sometimes critical to understanding an event. The attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th 1941, is not the whole story for the United States involvement in world War II. I have read several books about the Japanese side of the war. But someone who wants to speak about America's involvement in World War II, ending with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, has to have some basic knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThere's the Boston massacre prior to 1776, the commandeering of American ships by the British prior to 1812, the firing on fort Sumter prior to the first battle of Manassas and so on.
I don't want to make a long comment because if you are like me, you read the first three lines of Martin's comments, know you've heard that a few hundred times and skip the rest.
ReplyDeletePretty Good One Brow. We were told it was Papadopoulos.
The reason the FBI gave for starting the Mueller investigation (the big lie) was George Papadopoulos in a bar threw out a rumor the Russians had hacked Mrs. Clinton's emails. The rumor was told to an Australian official who contacted the FBI. The FBI launched a multimillion dollar investigation based on a half-inebriated non-paid volunteer to the Trump campaign throwing out a rumor in a bar. That's the reason they gave us for three years. If the FBI were interested in an investigation, they would have interviewed the poor sap and realized he knew nothing. But they decided because of his political position, they would get him on something. They threw him in jail and you can look up the charges. Nothing to do with Russia.
Just think about that. Does the FBI launch investigations on people throwing out rumors in a bar? It's absurd on its face. But, as crazy star says, "Orange man bad" so it don't make him no nevermind. Your government, your FBI started a political persecution based on a dude throwing out a rumor in a bar. If you believe that, your comments are worthless to the public discussion. And if you think it's okay for the FBI to do political persecution because "Orange Man Bad" you are unamerican.
The real reason, after three years of lying to us, we found out under Durham. Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia. It was all a lie concocted by corrupt Dem's who couldn't handle the results of the election. This is the tip of the iceburg on the corruption. Feel free to comment and let me know if you are able to handle the next question.
Unrelated question, how many of Trump's political opponents went to jail for minor infractions? How many of Hillary's political opponents went to jail for minor infractions?
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, do you know the one person shot and killed on 1/6? Again, the right knows all the Left's narratives but the left lives in their bubble.
ReplyDeleteOf course we do. It was Ashli Babbitt, who was tragically shot and killed because she had been duped by Trump's Big Lie into believing the election had been stolen (which it was most definitely not), while in the act of violently breaking into the US Capitol with the expressed intent of murdering the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and any other elected representative who failed to go along with Trump's coup attempt.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who doubts the above written is definitely living in a bubble.
She was shot for trespassing Star. That's a misdemeanor. I know crazy people imagine all kinds of motivations on others. That's the psychosis of the left, they imagine what other people are thinking. Her crime was trespassing and she was shot without warning by a large police officer who could have easily subdued this 125 lb lady with no criminal record.
ReplyDeleteShe was shot in act of participating in an armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States. Her motivation was to destroy our 250 year old democracy, replacing it with an authoritarian dictatorship run by a certifiably insane pathological liar and criminal narcissist. Sorry if you can't handle the truth, and prefer "alternative facts". Next you'll be saying she was merely a peaceful tourist who wanted to admire the statuary in the rotunda.
ReplyDeleteWhat was she armed with?
ReplyDeleteTell me more about her motivation?
How do you understand an individual's motives?
If I said "here is what Star believes"..."Here is what Star will say next"...Please call me Crazy Limited.
ReplyDeleteThere is a genuine psychosis on the left.
When you're part of a violent mob, individual motives are irrelevant. What matters is the intention of the mob.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, when defending yourself against a violent assault, you don't waste time worrying about what this or that individual is thinking - you stop the attack.
What? You think that while Ashli and the mob were attempting to break into the congressional chambers with the stated intent of murdering our elected representatives, that the Capitol Police should first conduct a psychological examination of the individual attackers before defending our democracy?
Don't get me wrong. I think Ashli's death was a terrible and totally unnecessary tragedy. But the people solely responsible for it were those (and one person in particular) who poisoned her mind with a steady diet of lies. Our former president ought to be charged with at least manslaughter over her death.
I'm thankful I don't agree with you that people should be imprisoned and murdered for political protest. I understand how you have been worked up by lies to excuse murder, violence, and imprisonment of your political opponents. You have been poisoned by the left for hate against an imaginary threat. I don't blame you for excusing murder. You are a product of the left's imagination.
ReplyDeleteFor the 10,000th time, I am not a "leftist". I have yet to hear a clear definition of what the term is supposed to mean.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say you were a leftist. I said if you excuse the murder of the young lady on January 6th, you have been persuaded by leftist propaganda.
ReplyDeleteIf you think as a mortal man that you can read into the thoughts and motivations of a person using terms like, racist, sexist, homophobia, as a key to understanding someone's motives and actions, you have accepted the propaganda of the left.
ReplyDeleteNot individuals. Groups, classes, power structures, hierarchies, societies, and yes... even mobs.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals? No.
I'll admit if you stick someone in a group you can nail them. Maryland Democrats? Slaveholders.
DeleteLimited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteShe was shot for trespassing Star.
Trespassing is when you cross a non-physical boundary to step on someone's property. Babbitt was part of a group engaged in breaking and entering. Most conservatives believe in the Castle Doctrine, and that you are justified to shoot someone for breaking and entering even if they are unarmed (Perhaps you don't?). Under the usual doctrine, her shooting was justified if it was a person's home, place of business, or any other place she didn't have any right to be.
If you believe it was wrong to shoot Babbitt, then (if being consistent) you would believe it was wrong for any property owner to defend their property during pretty much any protest. That doesn't sound like you.
The reason the FBI gave for starting the Mueller investigation (the big lie) was George Papadopoulos in a bar threw out a rumor the Russians had hacked Mrs. Clinton's emails. ... The real reason, after three years of lying to us, we found out under Durham. Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia.
Papadopolous did his bragging in April 2016. Sussman met Baker in September. Your timeline is all screwed up.
Babbit, an unarmed trespasser was shot dead by a police officer twice her size without warning for a misdemeanor. Seems One Brow has changed the definition of a justified murder of an unarmed person by police. My thoughts on self-defense are about defending your home, a very different circumstance than a trained police officer.
ReplyDeleteBabbitt was not an "unarmed trespasser". She was an active participant in a violent insurrection, intent on overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been paying attention.
ReplyDeleteHas someone been charged with insurrection?
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteBabbit, an unarmed trespasser was shot dead by a police officer twice her size without warning for a misdemeanor.
1) The officer size doesn't matter, because he's not big enought to fight off 6 people, and Babbitt was leading the charge of several others to follow. If you don't see that from the video, you are seriously deluding yourself.
2) Near as I can tell, Babbitt's crime was burglary in the second degree, which is a felony. You could also make a case for Terrorism -- "Influence the policy or conduct of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion".
https://code.dccouncil.us/us/dc/council/code/titles/22/chapters/8
https://code.dccouncil.us/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-3152
https://washingtondccriminallawyer.net/dc-theft-lawyer/burglary/penalties/#:~:text=Burglary%20is%20a%20felony%20crime,burglary%20or%20an%20unlawful%20entry.
Seems One Brow has changed the definition of a justified murder of an unarmed person by police.
Seems Limited Perspective is too much of a coward or too self-blinded to renounce the castle doctrine to to acknowledge it was a justified shooting.
My thoughts on self-defense are about defending your home, a very different circumstance than a trained police officer.
Trained police officers are entitled to the exact same rights in defending their home as you or I. Security personnel/officers also possess these rights in defending when in other sorts of buildings.
Should have been "or to" instead of "to to".
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping you're incorrect One Brow. Police shooting citizens in the face to prove they are not cowards. God help us
ReplyDeleteStar, I always knew the crazy people would justify the murder of their political opponents when they accept an insane narrative. She was unarmed.
ReplyDeleteThe mob was not unarmed. She was a member of the violent mob. Why can you not accept this? Defending congress from attack is not murder, not by any definition.
ReplyDeleteThe Papadopolous excuse was a lie, the Sussmann accusation was a fraud. The Mueller investigation was political persecution by the corrupt Dems.
ReplyDelete"The officer size doesn't matter"
ReplyDeleteIn world do live in? A burly 250 lb man can shoot dead 125 lb girl because he felt threatened? You live in a different universe than I do.
"Has someone been charged with insurrection?"
ReplyDeleteNone. It's the narrative accusation that crazy people make to justify political persecution.
"Has someone been charged with insurrection?"
ReplyDeleteHas OJ been convicted of murder? You don't have to be charged (or even convicted) to still be guilty of a crime.
,"You don't have to be charged (or even convicted) to still be guilty of a crime."
ReplyDeleteAnd that is tyranny in one sentence. Thanks.
And racism.
ReplyDeleteIt's why you can't be on the sidelines when Bolsheviks want to seize power.
ReplyDelete>>>Hillary Clinton's attorney, Michael Sussmann, with access to the FBI told the DOJ he had information about Trump and Russia. It was all a lie concocted by corrupt Dem's who couldn't handle the results of the election.
ReplyDeleteIn August of 2016 Sussman came across evidence that a Trump server was communicating with Alfa Bank in Russia, and decided to leak this information to the press. This was done with Clinton's approval, because why WOULDN'T she think such information was important for the press to look into, after her email hack in July of 2016?
A reporter (Eric Lichtblau at the NY Times) thought there was enough there to be a serious story, and spoke with Alfa Bank about it, after which the communication between the Trump server and Alfa Bank suddenly stopped. He was preparing his story, but then...
THE FBI ASKED THE NY TIMES TO NIX THE STORY! The "corrupt" FBI, headed by registered Republicans, helped to nix the Trump/Alfa Bank story, followed closely by Comey famously announcing an investigation into Hillary's emails, thus helping Trump and sinking Clinton!!!
Meanwhile, the Alfa Bank investigation went quiet, and to this day nobody knows what that communication was. Could have been innocuous, such as DNS lookups; we just don't know. Franklin Foer took a deep dive into the story, pros and cons.
So a bunch of leftist Hillary supporters reported to the leftist press that the FBI was informed of the "Alpha Bank communication with Trump servers" before the election and to this day, "we just don't know" from 2016.
ReplyDeleteEven after the Mueller report, after the first impeachment attempt, after the second impeachment attempt, after the Mara Logo raid.
Could it just have been a dirty Hillary campaign trick? No. She is as pure as the driven snow...LOL
But it seems both sides agree.
ReplyDeleteAbolish the FBI.
Oh.
ReplyDeleteAnd coming to a country close to you. Life imitates art in the UK.
Miller,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to have a brother in the contest. Keep up the good fight. The Lord be with you.
Limited Perspective
ReplyDeleteIn world do live in? A burly 250 lb man can shoot dead 125 lb girl because he felt threatened? You live in a different universe than I do.
When she's the first person in a line of more than a dozen, from a group that just violently broke through a barrier and are screaming for more violence, absolutely.
Why do you keep focusing on Babbitt, as if she was alone, and on the weight? If a 300-lb man had been the first person through the window, would you then say the shooting was justified? 200-lbs? How many people does the guard have to let inside the chamber before he's allowed to defend it?
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeletePolice shooting citizens in the face to prove they are not cowards.
As opposed to bravery of shooting Jermaine Petit while he was running away, after saying to each other he didn't have a gun. How many words will you spend on Petit, who committed no crimes at all before police came at him.
She was unarmed.
That doesn't make her innocent. She was part of a crowd breaking through a locked door.
The Papadopolous excuse was a lie, ...
Yet, you acknowledge the incident happened, and the investigation was underway before Sussman talked to the FBI.
... the Sussmann accusation was a fraud.
Unverifed, sure. How could Sussman know it was not true?
The Mueller investigation was political persecution by the corrupt Dems.
Mueller is a life-long Republican.
>reported to the leftist press t
ReplyDeleteI don't know what "leftist" means. The NY Times ran breathtaking story after breathtaking story about "Her Emails (c)" and nary a single story about the Russian connections with Trump. So I guess "leftist" means "hurt Hillary and help Donald...?"
Either way, the point is that for all of Limited Perspective's talk about "narrative"...indeed, the narrative that the Sussman thing was a "corrupt Democrat plot" against Perpetual Victim Trump is shown to be nonsense, if you actually look at the details instead of the garbage tabloids. The reality is almost the opposite. Not surprising as Comey and Mueller are both registered Republicans, and the current director of the FBI is not only a registered Republican but also a Trump appointee.
"I don't know what "leftist" means."
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it, Martin. After struggling to understand what was meant by the term, I finally settled on the following definition: Whatever Limited and bmiller disagree with.
It's a convenient shorthand. Requires no thought, no reasoning. Just, "I don't like it, so it's leftist (shudder), and therefore evil."
NYT reporters won Pulitzer for reporting on Russiagate. TDS causes amnesia.
ReplyDeleteSo what do all you Trump apologists have to say, now that we know he stole nuclear related documents of the very highest classification? Oh, and lied about having them when his lawyers claimed they had returned "everything"?
ReplyDeleteJermaine Petit
ReplyDeleteI usually don't make predictions One Brow, but I'm guessing the officer who shot Petit will be prosecuted and Mr Petit's family will receive millions of dollars. As opposed to the officer who shot the young lady at the Capitol. Let me know if I am wrong.
By your definition, all those videos of people smashing in windows and going into stores to take out loot, should have been mowed down with bullets by the police. Thank God the police don't have your perspective.
There are many definitions of being a leftist. One is the use of the government's power to suppress your political rivals. Star and Martin have that bloodthirsty instinct which makes them leftist. More definitions to come. But being bloodthirsty is at the top.
ReplyDeleteLimited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteI usually don't make predictions One Brow, but I'm guessing the officer who shot Petit will be prosecuted and Mr Petit's family will receive millions of dollars. As opposed to the officer who shot the young lady at the Capitol. Let me know if I am wrong.
*chortle* *snicker* I predict that absolutely more serious than a few day off will happen to these officers.
By your definition, all those videos of people smashing in windows and going into stores to take out loot, should have been mowed down with bullets by the police. Thank God the police don't have your perspective.
If there were people inside the stores, said people would have been within their rights to do so. "Should have"? I would disagree there, assuming if we are discussing property damage only, with no people on the premises. They should have been arrested and charged.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteCould you provide an authoritative source for your definition? Most I find relate to individual freedoms (once you get past the circular references).
One Brow,
ReplyDeleteI find myself slipping into insanity in the back and forth here. I'm going to check out for a while. Perhaps we could have had some interesting conversations under different circumstances, but this is not healthy for me.
Limited,
ReplyDeleteI think your problem is assuming your opponents are interested in discussing what is true rather than telling you that Orange Man Bad....over and over and over and over....
You can't get blood from a stone.
I'm interested in discussing what is true. That's what I did above where I described what really happened with the FBI and Sussman, in contradiction to the tabloid narrative that the FBI is corrupt democrats.
ReplyDeleteMartin,
ReplyDeleteWhat tabloid narrative is claiming the "FBI is corrupt democrats"?