Should there be a special consel to investigate Loretta Lynch?

Some members of the GOP are calling for a special counsel to be formed to investigate Loretta Lynch due to the revelations by James Comey when he testified June 8th.

My question for those here is...should this be done?

sure why not.

Let it go.

I wouldn't have a problem with it.

country before party? what sort of batshit is that?

Trump should use his executive powers and get right on this, like he promised he was going to do against Clinton before he won

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump should use his executive powers and get right on this, like he promised he was going to do against Clinton before he won

Indeed, and once the Russia collusion narrative has been proven as nonsense once and for all that is something he should do. Otherwise people would just complain and say he's just trying to distract from Russia by looking into Lynch.

You're coming off rather "salty", brah. Everyone here so far has said they're pro investigation, so no need for salt.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're coming off rather "salty", brah. Everyone here so far has said they're pro investigation, so no need for salt.

I'm not, seems like another witch hunt.

Yes I think Hillary should have been prosecuted for her server but constantly rehashing is just tiresome.

Sure, country before party or party before country, needs to be investigated... : laugh:

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, and once the Russia collusion narrative has been proven as nonsense once and for all.


That certain there is nothing to it are we? Well, if there is nothing for Trump to fear in the Russian investigation then he is doing the worst impression of a man with nothing to hide that I have ever seen.

He seems obsessed with shutting it down. Going so far in that regard that now he has now triggered an obstruction of justice investigation as well.

I have never thought that Trump was in bed with the Russians over some political ideology. The man has none. And I doubt there will be any smoking gun showing him to have openly asked them or assisted them to interfere with the election. No, what I'm certain he fears is the exposure of his shady business dealings in Russia. And judging by his desperation to get this all shut down they must be shady indeed.

Despite his claims of being a great businessman his credit is actually so bad American banks won't loan him money anymore. I'd bet house payment money that he is getting money from some rather unsavory Russian oligarchs in exchange for laundering their money through a legitimate business. One of his casinos got in some hot water for money laundering as I recall so he knows the game. Also as president he is uniquely positioned to eventually ease sanctions and clear obstacles to certain major business deals involving Russia.

Well, if he could just get this pesky investigation shut down. Maybe he could fire the FBI director then tell the Russian ambassador that doing so had really got some heat off his back. LOL!

Originally posted by Robtard
You're coming off rather "salty", brah. Everyone here so far has said they're pro investigation, so no need for salt.

Not salty, merely pointing out reality. If Trump tried this now that is what folk would say.

On top of that, why is this reply salty, but your jab at Trump for breaking a promise wasn't?

Originally posted by Todd1700
That certain there is nothing to it are we? Well, if there is nothing for Trump to fear in the Russian investigation then he is doing the worst impression of a man with nothing to hide that I have ever seen.

Or he is just frustrated over this BS investigation. I would be too. Especially when those doing the investigation can't even stop leaks from being released. Especially after being told he wasn't being investigated and yet that somehow magically was one of the few things that never got leaked. I wonder why?



Perhaps this is because the Democrats and our media are obsessed with trying to take him down.



Or he's just tired of the bullshit and being smeared on a daily basis over nonsense. It's always Russia Russia Russia. The collusion narrative falls apart, so they need to go after something else to give the dogs a bone, now it's obstruction. Meanwhile? Don't you dare bring up the fact some people on Muellers staff donated thousands of dollars to Hilary's presidential campaign. If you do you're just trying to discredit Mueller.



At the very least maybe he could ask Mueller to refer to it as a "matter" instead of an investigation.

Originally posted by Surtur
Or he is just frustrated over this BS investigation. I would be too. Especially when those doing the investigation can't even stop leaks from being released.



Perhaps this is because our media is obsessed with trying to take him down.



Or he's just tired of the bullshit and being smeared on a daily basis over nonsense. It's always Russia Russia Russia. The collusion narrative falls apart, so they need to go after something else to give the dogs a bone, now it's obstruction. Meanwhile? Don't you dare bring up the fact some people on Muellers staff donated thousands of dollars to Hilary's presidential campaign. If you do you're just trying to discredit Mueller.



At the very least maybe he could ask Mueller to refer to it as a "matter" instead of an investigation.

It doesn't matter what he is frustrated with. You can't attempt to shut down FBI investigations just because they might lead down roads that implicate some of your top appointees and advisors. Not to mention an investigation that might eventually implicate you as well. The sitting president even calling or meeting directly with the FBI director to ask about such investigations is in itself a violation of DOJ rules. And that's before you even get in to what was said. But of course what Trump said makes it much worse. He also apparently contacted director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency head Mike Rogers and asked them to pressure Comey to drop the Russia investigation. Then when none of that worked he fired Comey. That takes this beyond one slip up and establishes a pattern.



First of all I don't know where you get this notion that the Russian investigation has failed or hit a dead end. What's your source on that? Breitbart? InfoWars? Because no news source that has ever gotten close enough to smell a pile of s#*t left behind by a credible human being is reporting that the Russian investigation is coming to an end without finding anything. From what I can tell it seems to be going full steam and expanding into multiple new areas. Even Fox news acknowledges this.

Second, no one has switched to an obstruction case in frustration because the other investigation failed. Both are going on concurrently. The obstruction investigation was started because a 9 year old child watching the presidents actions and listening to the words from his own mouth would turn to his or her mother and say, "Holy s*#t I think the president is attempting to obstruct justice". It looks that obvious and bad.



And I'm sure you were equally offended at the right wing media's obsession with smearing Obama the entire 8 years he was in office. Or the entire medias daily reporting of the special prosecutor that investigated Bill Clinton back in the 90's. There may have been less news outlets back then but trust me everyone of them talked about Ken Stars investigation of Bill Clinton every single day. And you talk about being tired of this Russian investigation? LOL! Ken stars investigation of Bill Clinton lasted 6 years. Started with a 14 year old land deal in Arkansas and ended up with a totally unrelated sex scandal involving an intern. So pardon me if my ass isn't bleeding for your highly selective outrage over what the media covers or your fatigue with an investigation that hasn't been going on even a small fraction of the time that the republicans kept Ken Starr latched on Clintons ass. And keep in mind the democrats control no branch of government at this time. They have nothing to do with Trumps troubles. Trump has managed to draw all this onto himself in a time when republicans control every aspect of our government. What a dumbass.



What the hell difference would that make? A rose by any other name. But more to the point there "is" an "investigation" going on so why would he call it anything else?

Originally posted by Todd1700
It doesn't matter what he is frustrated with. You can't attempt to shut down FBI investigations just because they might lead down roads that implicate some of your top appointees and advisors. Not to mention an investigation that might eventually implicate you as well. The sitting president even calling or meeting directly with the FBI director to ask about such investigations is in itself a violation of DOJ rules. And that's before you even get in to what was said. But of course what Trump said makes it much worse. He also apparently contacted director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency head Mike Rogers and asked them to pressure Comey to drop the Russia investigation. Then when none of that worked he fired Comey. That takes this beyond one slip up and establishes a pattern.



First of all I don't know where you get this notion that the Russian investigation has failed or hit a dead end. What's your source on that? Breitbart? InfoWars? Because no news source that has ever gotten close enough to smell a pile of s#*t left behind by a credible human being is reporting that the Russian investigation is coming to an end without finding anything. From what I can tell it seems to be going full steam and expanding into multiple new areas. Even Fox news acknowledges this.

Second, no one has switched to an obstruction case in frustration because the other investigation failed. Both are going on concurrently. The obstruction investigation was started because a 9 year old child watching the presidents actions and listening to the words from his own mouth would turn to his or her mother and say, "Holy s*#t I think the president is attempting to obstruct justice". It looks that obvious and bad.



And I'm sure you were equally offended at the right wing media's obsession with smearing Obama the entire 8 years he was in office. Or the entire medias daily reporting of the special prosecutor that investigated Bill Clinton back in the 90's. There may have been less news outlets back then but trust me everyone of them talked about Ken Stars investigation of Bill Clinton every single day. And you talk about being tired of this Russian investigation? LOL! Ken stars investigation of Bill Clinton lasted 6 years. Started with a 14 year old land deal in Arkansas and ended up with a totally unrelated sex scandal involving an intern. So pardon me if my ass isn't bleeding for your highly selective outrage over what the media covers.



What the hell difference would that make? A rose by any other name. But more to the point there "is" an "investigation" going on so why would he call it anything else?

Good Post

Originally posted by Todd1700
It doesn't matter what he is frustrated with. You can't attempt to shut down FBI investigations just because they might lead down roads that implicate some of your top appointees and advisors. Not to mention an investigation that might eventually implicate you as well. The sitting president even calling or meeting directly with the FBI director to ask about such investigations is in itself a violation of DOJ rules. And that's before you even get in to what was said. But of course what Trump said makes it much worse. He also apparently contacted director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency head Mike Rogers and asked them to pressure Comey to drop the Russia investigation. Then when none of that worked he fired Comey. That takes this beyond one slip up and establishes a pattern.

It needs to be noted he didn't attempt to shut down an investigation. Firing Comey did not stop the investigation. Though I'm not saying he didn't make mistakes. He shouldn't have cleared the room to talk to Comey alone.



Lol it's not from any site it is just my opinion that the collusion narrative has failed. Now they are turning to obstruction of justice. We have leaks to show he is being investigated, but strangely no leaks of any actual evidence of wrongdoing.



And I disagree, I think that is what they are going after him more aggressively now for. Again this is just my opinion, so no I am not getting this from Breitbart.



So a deflection? Okay, this will be interesting. Whenever people here feel I am deflecting to Hilary Clinton they call it out. Let us see if they call you out for it.



It was a joke, you know because of the whole "call it a matter not an investigation" thing with Lynch.

Well it's easier to leak something vague like "Trump is now being looked at for obstruction of justice" than something more specific and probably much better guarded like actual evidence.

Plus, personally, I think Mueller intentionally let it out that Trump is now under personal investigation in order to protect himself from potentially being fired for frivolous reasons.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well it's easier to leak something vague like "Trump is now being looked at for obstruction of justice" than something more specific and probably much better guarded like actual evidence.

Plus, personally, I think Mueller intentionally let it out that Trump is now under personal investigation in order to protect himself from potentially being fired for frivolous reasons.

That is my theory too, either it was Mueller or someone close to him.

Though serious question: do you think this special counsel is going to be fair? Here are some of the people on his staff:

Michael Dreeben - donated to Obama and Clinton

Jeannie Rhee - deputy assist AG, Wilmer Hale, Donated to DNC, Obama, Clinton

James Quarles - asst. special prosecutor, Wilmer Hale, long history of Dem donations, Clinton

Andrew Weissman - oversees fraud at Justice. Donated six times to Obama PACs as well as DNC in 2006.

Also isn't Mueller himself a friend of Comey's?

Being supportive of Democrats doesn't really matter, the evidence will be the evidence. I mean, it's now their job to try and find dirt on Trump and his campaign; makes sense to get people who aren't terribly friendly towards him. Investigators should be somewhat hostile towards those they're investigating - makes it more likely they'll actually attempt to find damaging information if it exists.

Originally posted by BackFire
Being supportive of Democrats doesn't really matter, the evidence will be the evidence. I mean, it's now their job to try and find dirt on Trump and his campaign; makes sense to get people who aren't terribly friendly towards him. Investigators should be somewhat hostile towards those they're investigating - makes it more likely they'll actually attempt to find damaging information if it exists.

I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

I'm all for "draining the swamp" of corruption, republican or democrat. Then job their heads in front of the capitol building French revolution style.

Originally posted by Surtur
That is my theory too, either it was Mueller or someone close to him.

Though serious question: do you think this special counsel is going to be fair? Here are some of the people on his staff:

Michael Dreeben - donated to Obama and Clinton

Jeannie Rhee - deputy assist AG, Wilmer Hale, Donated to DNC, Obama, Clinton

James Quarles - asst. special prosecutor, Wilmer Hale, long history of Dem donations, Clinton

Andrew Weissman - oversees fraud at Justice. Donated six times to Obama PACs as well as DNC in 2006.

Also isn't Mueller himself a friend of Comey's?
So only republicans can investigate Trump? No concern that they would be biased in the other direction? How about judging the people involved from either party by how they actually do their job and not by your preconceived notion of how they will conduct themselves. Besides if he had wanted to keep a Republican in charge he shouldn't have fired Comey. LOL!

Originally posted by Surtur
I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

Its funny how you say "If Hillary was under investigation..." when Trump is the one who essentially nullified investigation into her. And your hilarious dream of "He'll prosecute her after the Russia fiasco is over" is precisely that. A hilarious pipe dream.


Also it's hilarious how you care about donations to Democratic Congressmen but don't care that our entire executive cabinet under Trump have long histories of taking donations from corporate interests that are clearly influencing their policies. There goes that Trump supporter hypocrisy again.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just feel like if Hilary Clinton was being investigated by a special counsel and they brought on a bunch of Republicans onto the staff who had donated money to Trumps campaign that the Dems would be calling foul.

Hostility is one thing, failing to be non-partisan is another. Almost makes it seem like the staff really wants to take Trump down as opposed to merely wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think some of them *want* to find something.

They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by BackFire
They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Yep, that's their job.

And that's why you get ridiculous cases that anyone with a heart would just as soon ignore, regardless of the law.. Which prosecutors or DA's could totally do, btw.

Not talkimg Trump or politics at all here, I just have a pet peeve with the idea of prosecuting someone being a full time job, and therefore creating an incentive to throw the book at anyone and everyone in range. No matter how stupid or heartless the case is.

No justice tempered with compassion/common sense or any of that. No mercy built into the system.. unless you're a crony to a president or a friend of a crony, and win the pardon lottery..

Originally posted by cdtm
Yep, that's their job.

And that's why you get ridiculous cases that anyone with a heart would just as soon ignore, regardless of the law.. Which prosecutors or DA's could totally do, btw.

Not talkimg Trump or politics at all here, I just have a pet peeve with the idea of prosecuting someone being a full time job, and therefore creating an incentive to throw the book at anyone and everyone in range. No matter how stupid or heartless the case is.

No justice tempered with compassion/common sense or any of that. No mercy built into the system.. unless you're a crony to a president or a friend of a crony, and win the pardon lottery..

"You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth."

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
"You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth."

In this case, I'll support throwing the book at him.

It's really the whole "Prison industrial complex" I was on about before.. Everything from legally advancing a career based on how many "gotcha's" you can rack up (And is there any argument there are many stupid laws on the books, such that we need an entire professional class of individuals just to navigate it?), to more slimey "kickback schemes" (Like throwing the book at youth's for minor offenses, to fill up a youth detention center..)

That and an apathetic/reactionary general public that doesn'r serve as a check on authority (I'm not talking "fight the power" hippie bs here. All I ask is genuine empathy, common sense, and a sense of justice tempered with mercy.. You know, a combination that doesn't really exist in self interested narcissists, which seems to be our entire population..)

Off topic rant over..

Originally posted by BackFire
They do want to find something, they're prosecutors, it's their job to try and find something to prosecute over. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence then it doesn't really matter.

Their job should be to get to the truth, but okay so...like I said if the situation was reversed and with Hilary, would democrats be okay with it? Okay with republicans on the staff who donated thousands to Trump?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Its funny how you say "If Hillary was under investigation..." when Trump is the one who essentially nullified investigation into her. And your hilarious dream of "He'll prosecute her after the Russia fiasco is over" is precisely that. A hilarious pipe dream.

I was using Hilary as an example as to how Democrats would act if the same thing was going down. But yeah sure hilarious, okay.




We are talking about the investigation though. So yes I care if we have people who are likely not to be non-partisan.

But you wanna come and whine about donations that have nothing to do with possibly non-partisan staffers on this special counsel? Sounds like a deflection, which I'm sure the usual suspects will be calling out any second now.

I'm jk, nothing will be said or they'll just make up excuses for it, so you're safe

there's a difference with being frustrated with an investigation and supporting their every attempt to ratf*ck it. mueller: american hero to cuck, because reasons.

so 'nah', mueller would not have been smeared under president hillary. probably because she knows he's unimpeachable, and any attempt to smear him would be/has been laughably stupid

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there's a difference with being frustrated with an investigation and supporting their every attempt to ratf*ck it. mueller: american hero to cuck, because reasons. nah, mueller would not have been smeared under president hillary. probably because he's pretty much unimpeachable and any attempt to smear him has proven to be laughably stupid

The reasons are the fact he picked several people on his staff who donated thousands of dollars to Hilary's presidential campaign.

I will ask you the same question I asked Backfire and let us see if you can gather your thoughts enough to respond. Since it's a hypothetical and I know those trouble you, but try:

Hilary is being investigated for something by a special counsel. The person in charge appoints several republicans who have donated thousands of dollars to Donald Trumps presidential campaign. What would happen, in terms of the democrats reaction to that?

Please tell me you truly believe nobody would have a problem with the staffers lol. Cuz if so I have 3 beans to sell you, they are magic.

several=3 (according to this link, anyway). they donated to the democratic candidate as they always do, and this disqualifies them? special rules again?



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes

not seeing evidence of thousands donated to clinton's campain for any but one:



the rest seem unrelated to clinton. so i'm suspecting that you're just peddling lies as usual.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
several = 3 (according to this link, anyway). they donated to the democratic candidate as they always do, and this disqualifies them?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes

These are people on the staff who donated thousands of dollars to the Hilary Clinton campaign. Yes, 3.

So again I ask: do you feel Democrats would not make a stink over the same thing? I can't imagine them finding out some of the people donated thousands to Trump and not saying a thing about it. Nancy Pelosi would be running her mouth.

Also just to be clear, even ONE person who couldn't be non-partisan would be one person too many.

again, seems only one donated to clinton. but have fun trying to pretend-away the evidence i posted.

TO THE NEXT PAGE!!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
again, seems only one donated to clinton. but have fun trying to pretend-away the evidence i posted.

TO THE NEXT PAGE!!!


ONWARD, TO THE NEXT PAGE!!! Because the page turning means Surt has erased his public humiliation.

he'll either return to avoid evidence, do flips, and claim some personal victory again; or he'll just avoid the thread like a coward (as it seems he's doing). nothing we haven't seen before.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he'll either return to avoid evidence, do flips, and claim some personal victory again; or he'll just avoid the thread like a coward (as it seems he's doing). nothing we haven't seen before.

It's what the Alt-right do.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not salty, merely pointing out reality. If Trump tried this now that is what folk would say.

On top of that, why is this reply salty, but your jab at Trump for breaking a promise wasn't?

More speculation.

Why would I be in tears over another Trump lie? I didn't support Trump; I didn't vote for Trump. So when he broke his promise of prosecuting Hillary, he didn't break it to me, he broke it to you and the rest of the Trumpers who desperately wanted Clinton's head on a pike.

Honestly, what did it taste like when he did a 180* and went from calling Clinton the 'most corrupt politician ever' to 'the country owes her a debt of gratitude, she is a good person' shortly after the election? "Salty" I assume.

Originally posted by Robtard
More speculation.

Why would I be in tears? I didn't support Trump; I didn't vote for Trump. So when he broke his promise of prosecuting Hillary, he didn't break it to me, he broke it to you and the rest of the Trumpers who desperately wanted Clinton's head on a pike.

Honestly, what did it taste like when he did a 180* and went from calling Clinton the 'most corrupt politician ever' to 'the country owes her a debt of gratitude, she is a good person'? "Salty" I assume.

no. surt should address and correct his lies regarding the investigation and mueller, first.

Originally posted by Robtard
More speculation.

Why would I be in tears over another Trump lie? I didn't support Trump; I didn't vote for Trump. So when he broke his promise of prosecuting Hillary, he didn't break it to me, he broke it to you and the rest of the Trumpers who desperately wanted Clinton's head on a pike.

Honestly, what did it taste like when he did a 180* and went from calling Clinton the 'most corrupt politician ever' to 'the country owes her a debt of gratitude, she is a good person' shortly after the election? "Salty" I assume.

I don't know how it tasted, but probably not as salty as the tears on the night Trump won. Nothing will ever match that salt.

You see that's why I don't care too much he didn't go after Hilary: he doesn't have to. She's already done, she'll forever be known as the woman who lost to Trump and that is hilarious. Trump could get impeached tomorrow and that wouldn't change.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no. surt should address and correct his lies regarding the investigation and mueller, first.

LoL, don't hold you breath. He take one out of glorious leader's book. Deny, Deflect and Dance when caught in a lie.

what a surprise, surt eagerly grabs for the topic-shift to avoid answering for his lies.

so courageous, surt.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know how it tasted, but probably not as salty as the tears on the night Trump won. Nothing will ever match that salt.

You see that's why I don't care too much he didn't go after Hilary: he doesn't have to. She's already done, she'll forever be known as the woman who lost to Trump and that is hilarious. Trump could get impeached tomorrow and that wouldn't change.

What a weird coincidence that since Trump took office, every time he breaks a promise, you go something like "meh, that wasn't important to me".

Anyhow, anything to say in regards to your fake news in here?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what a surprise, surt eagerly grabs for the topic-shift to avoid answering for his lies.

so courageous, surt.

Lol, what lies? There are staffers on there that have donated to Hilary and other democrats.

In fact I just read an article today about yet ANOTHER person who donated being brought on. Small amounts, but the woman being brought on in the past claimed to be apolitical. So she is not.

Originally posted by Robtard
What a weird coincidence that since Trump took office, every time he breaks a promise, you go something like "meh, that wasn't important to me".

Anyhow, anything to say in regards to your fake news in here?

Point to the fake news. Your butt buddy posted an article showing 3, and I just noted I saw another article with yet another staffer who donated to Clinton and Obama.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, what lies? There are staffers on there that have donated to Hilary and other democrats.

In fact I just read an article today about yet ANOTHER person who donated being brought on. Small amounts, but the woman being brought on in the past claimed to be apolitical. So she is not.

as i already posted, and you (very bravely) tucked tail and avoided: only one of the staffers donated to the clinton campaign. and so, you're a liar. i call you a liar because someone who made an honest mistake would correct themselves. yet here you are shamelessly and malignantly repeating a baldfaced lie. why?


http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mocratic-causes

more proof that you really do think that a page-turn somehow reboots the thread and erases your screw-ups.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
as i already posted, and you (very bravely) tucked tail and avoided: only one of the staffers donated to the clinton campaign. and so, you're a liar. i call you a liar because someone who made an honest mistake would correct themselves. yet here you are shamelessly and malignantly repeating a baldfaced lie. why?


http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mocratic-causes

more proof that you really do think that a page-turn somehow reboots the thread and erases your screw-ups.

The ones that didn't donate to Clinton donated to other democrats though, and a new person just put on board also donated to Clinton.

So where is the lie, since the first names I posted for Backfire listed people who did not donate specifically to Clinton. Then you come in and act like you dropped some knowledge on me, but you didn't. I literally posted about it on the first page. Not all were Clinton, some just donated to other democrats, and I'm worried about it being non-partisan.

Originally posted by Surtur
The reasons are the fact he picked several people on his staff who donated thousands of dollars to Hilary's presidential campaign.

you said several donated to clinton. only one did. so you LIED.

now you're avoiding the fact that you LIED and are trying to assert that donating to any political campaigns auto-disqualifies council members. you're pathetic.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you said several donated to clinton. only one did. so you LIED.

now you're avoiding the fact that you LIED and are trying to assert that donating to any political campaigns auto-disqualifies council members. you're pathetic.

Lol uh, I posted a list on the first page and 3 have Hilary connections. I got that straight from an article.

So you are saying the article is false?

Oh and there were 3, now we have 4.

you posted no source. should i just trust a liar then?

so are you going to post a link, or are you just going to do your silly dance again?

Why do I get the feeling you'll dismiss it because of the source? But oh well, it'll be entertaining either way.

Mark Levin: Mueller Investigation Is Pretext To Impeachment

Elizabeth Prelogar needs to be added. Donated less than $1000 to H Doggy Dog, but also claimed she was apolitical. I don't want someone on the staff who doesn't know what words mean.

the hill reported that dreeben donated to clinton, and later issued a correction when the special council spokesman said otherwise. so even before the retraction it was only 2 reported as having donated to clinton. now it is only one.

since the site you linked posted no such corrections, i call your dodgy 'source' a pile of dogshit. and since you just waved your hand at a valid journalistic source, you must believe yourself adorable to make such a petty and silly accusation against me.

did you even RTFA?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes


:edit: yup, confirmed dogshit conspiracy-site source as usual. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the hill reported that dreeben donated to clinton, and later issued a correction when the special council spokesman said otherwise. so even before the retraction it was only 2 reported as having donated to clinton. now it is only one.

since the site you linked posted no such corrections, i call your dodgy 'source' a pile of dogshit. and since you just waved your hand at a valid journalistic source, you must believe yourself adorable to make such a petty and silly accusation against me.

did you even RTFA?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337428-four-top-legal-experts-on-muellers-team-donated-to-democratic-causes Wow, Bash, I didn't think anyone was going to cake and bake him more than Lestov today, then Rob had a good go and you I think topped them both.

doesnt matter. he'll simply go on peddling the same lies. his moral/ethical compass is broken/nonexistent.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
doesnt matter. he'll simply go on peddling the same lies. his moral/ethical compass is broken/nonexistent. Sadly I concur but in all seriousness, the heinous attitudes of the Alt-right and the normalization of ideas our fathers and mothers taught us not to think are the real problems, they are pervasive and backed by schoolyard bullying tactics on youtube etc. The anonymity of the internet just helps the trolls think they are cool kids spouting things they would never say in person. I hate to say I think the internet got us here and gave us Trump and Co.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Sadly I concur but in all seriousness, the heinous attitudes of the Alt-right and the normalization of ideas our fathers and mothers taught us not to think are the real problems, they are pervasive and backed by schoolyard bullying tactics on youtube etc. The anonymity of the internet just helps the trolls think they are cool kids spouting things they would never say in person. I hate to say I think the internet got us here and gave us Trump and Co.

i agree that this phenomenon is real, but radicalization of undereducated rage-addicted right-wingers has been going on since the 1960's via AM radio right-wing misinformation talk shows. source: nixon happened

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i agree that this phenomenon is real, but radicalization of undereducated rage-addicted right-wingers has been going on since the 1960's via AM radio right-wing talk shows. source: nixon happened True and as women gain more traction in the workplace and these underachievers see minorities succeeding in bigger and bigger numbers the resentment is fanned further by these people with agendas until it reaches critical mass and you get this shift of the Overton window going on that results in the shit happening now. These angry undereducated idiots form a ready-made congregation.

Originally posted by Surtur
Point to the fake news. Your butt buddy posted an article showing 3, and I just noted I saw another article with yet another staffer who donated to Clinton and Obama.

My "butt buddy" Bashar literally posted sources showing you lied, or more correctly you pushed a conservative fake news article intended to smear Mueller, who magically went from "impeccable morals" to 'cucklord who works for Obama/Clinton/Deep-gov'mint' in less than a month in the eyes of conservatives.

An adult would admit they fell for a hack job meant to smear; hopefully apologize for their error and move on; let's see what you do, sporto

Originally posted by Robtard
My "butt buddy" Basher literally posted sources showing you lied, or more correctly you pushed a conservative fake news article intended to smear Mueller, who magically went from "impeccable morals" to 'cucklord who works for Obama/Clinton/Deep-gov'mint' in less than a month in the eyes of conservatives.

An adult would admit they fell for a hack job meant to smear; hopefully apologize for their error and move on; let's see what you do, sporto.

Originally posted by Robtard
My "butt buddy" Bashar literally posted sources showing you lied, or more correctly you pushed a conservative fake news article intended to smear Mueller, who magically went from "impeccable morals" to 'cucklord who works for Obama/Clinton/Deep-gov'mint' in less than a month in the eyes of conservatives.

An adult would admit they fell for a hack job meant to smear; hopefully apologize for their error and move on; let's see what you do, sporto

inb4 "i already admitted i was wrong". that's always his go-to stunt in this situation.

Originally posted by Robtard
My "butt buddy" Bashar literally posted sources showing you lied, or more correctly you pushed a conservative fake news article intended to smear Mueller, who magically went from "impeccable morals" to 'cucklord who works for Obama/Clinton/Deep-gov'mint' in less than a month in the eyes of conservatives.

An adult would admit they fell for a hack job meant to smear; hopefully apologize for their error and move on; let's see what you do, sporto

Lol first of all, you saying how adults would act is priceless. You and the other dipshits on your side act like children all the time.

But if it was corrected sure, then the article was wrong.

it wasn't corrected in your source, nor was it wrong to the degree that thehill was (only one person retracted).
but you go on believing everything you read on dodgy conspiracy sites. it is i who am the sheep, not you.

relevant http://imgur.com/gallery/InYXq

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol first of all, you saying how adults would act is priceless. You and the other dipshits on your side act like children all the time.

But if it was corrected sure, then the article was wrong.

"Your side", there you go again. Surt. *sigh*

If you're agreeing it was wrong, then you really owe Bashar an apology for acting like an ass when he showed you the proof of your erroneous was.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Your side", there you go again. Surt. *sigh*

If you're agreeing it was wrong, then you really owe Bashar an apology for acting like an ass when he showed you the proof of your erroneous was.

lol and i'll be here holding my breath, waiting for surt to act like a big boy.

shitposting with theblaze. so hot right now.

Lol it's not just the blaze, are you saying they are wrong? This is happening.