Board 8 > Evidence has been revealed to House of FISA abuse by Obama admin to spy on Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

Vlado posted...

Either post a concrete piece of evidence, or admit you have none.

We did. Over and over. You're the one with your ears plugged and literally believe a conspiracy based on Seth Rich secretly leaking them and getting murdered by Hillary Clinton.

Where's your concrete evidence of that?
---

Vlado posted...

Either post a concrete piece of evidence, or admit you have none.

Lol
---

Also you said this memo was so damning and yet when the Dems want to release their own memo, Trump refuses. Why do you think that is? Why doesn't Trump believe in transparency unless he thinks it will help him?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

Either post a concrete piece of evidence, or admit you have none.

We did. Over and over. You're the one with your ears plugged and literally believe a conspiracy based on Seth Rich secretly leaking them and getting murdered by Hillary Clinton.

Where's your concrete evidence of that?

Either post a concrete piece of evidence, not a wiki page, or admit you have none.

About Rich, I've already said that my conclusions are based on Occam's razor, not evidence - of that we have none about either of the claims.

TheRock1525 posted...

Also you said this memo was so damning and yet when the Dems want to release their own memo, Trump refuses. Why do you think that is? Why doesn't Trump believe in transparency unless he thinks it will help him?

The Democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew, because of sources and methods (and more), would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency. Told them to re-do and send back in proper form!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/962330457886076928

Your buddy Rosenstein and Wray asked for the democrap memo to not be released. Rest assured, I want it released more than anyone else.

The truth fears no investigation.
---

So you are saying it is okay to ignore official documents you don't like?

I mean you compared ignoring FISA and ignoring that Russia doc and then ignored that Russia doc.

So I'm glad you now find it okay for everyone to ignore the FISA memo.
---

Maniac64 posted...

So you are saying it is okay to ignore official documents you don't like?

I mean you compared ignoring FISA and ignoring that Russia doc and then ignored that Russia doc.

So I'm glad you now find it okay for everyone to ignore the FISA memo.

Which one is the "Russia doc"? Is it this one?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

Because it doesn't contain a lick of evidence, just allegations. Some already debunked ones, too, like the Guccifer 2.0 "hacking" which was proven by forensics to have actually been a leak from within DNC due to the speed with which the files were copied being standard USB speed - much higher than any download over the internet. The question that remains there is only whether it was a disgruntled employee or DNC staged it all themselves as insurance for losing.

Just because something is "official" doesn't mean it's true. Governments lie all the time, especially American ones. ;)
---

Vlado posted...

Your buddy Rosenstein and Wray asked for the democrap memo to not be released.

Literally two guys appointed by Trump but sure they're "our buddies".
---

Vlado posted...

Maniac64 posted...

So you are saying it is okay to ignore official documents you don't like?

I mean you compared ignoring FISA and ignoring that Russia doc and then ignored that Russia doc.

So I'm glad you now find it okay for everyone to ignore the FISA memo.

Which one is the "Russia doc"? Is it this one?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

Because it doesn't contain a lick of evidence, just allegations. Some already debunked ones, too, like the Guccifer 2.0 "hacking" which was proven by forensics to have actually been a leak from within DNC due to the speed with which the files were copied being standard USB speed - much higher than any download over the internet. The question that remains there is only whether it was a disgruntled employee or DNC staged it all themselves as insurance for losing.

Just because something is "official" doesn't mean it's true. Governments lie all the time, especially American ones. ;)

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

Whoops looks like that's been discredited.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

Your buddy Rosenstein and Wray asked for the democrap memo to not be released.

Literally two guys appointed by Trump but sure they're "our buddies".

Rosenstein was actually appointed by Bush and then Obama asked him to stay, and this is common knowledge. Obviously a swamp creature.

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

Maniac64 posted...

So you are saying it is okay to ignore official documents you don't like?

I mean you compared ignoring FISA and ignoring that Russia doc and then ignored that Russia doc.

So I'm glad you now find it okay for everyone to ignore the FISA memo.

Which one is the "Russia doc"? Is it this one?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

Because it doesn't contain a lick of evidence, just allegations. Some already debunked ones, too, like the Guccifer 2.0 "hacking" which was proven by forensics to have actually been a leak from within DNC due to the speed with which the files were copied being standard USB speed - much higher than any download over the internet. The question that remains there is only whether it was a disgruntled employee or DNC staged it all themselves as insurance for losing.

Just because something is "official" doesn't mean it's true. Governments lie all the time, especially American ones. ;)

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

Whoops looks like that's been discredited.

Most of the article is a load of crap, but these's something that's plausible:

A hacker might have downloaded it to one computer, then shared it by USB to an air gapped [off the internet] network for translation, then copied by a different person for analysis, then brought a new USB to an entirely different air gapped computer to determine a strategy all before it was packaged for Guccifer 2.0 to leak, said Barger.

It's pretty convoluted, but it's not impossible, although the fact that the directory structure etc. remained untouched makes it doubtful they were carefully analysed and "packaged for leaking" before being uploaded on the internet.

Now, read this site, and all the facts which led to the conclusion the files were leaked from within DNC:
http://g-2.space/

I recommend the parts starting with "(3) Guccifer2.0's Claims Debunked & Discredited". It makes it 100% clear the self-proclaimed "hacker" is not involved in any way with the Russian government. "(6) Rushing To Be Russian - The Donkey In A Bear Costume Made A Mistake" is also a great read. :)
---

Vlado posted...

Rosenstein was actually appointed by Bush and then Obama asked him to stay, and this is common knowledge. Obviously a swamp creature.

Trump personally appointed him to his current position.
---

Your Seth Rich arguments are based on NO evidence, as you just said. You claim Occams razor as the simplest explanation being right, yet for whatever reason, you think the DNC and specifically Hillary Clinton assassinated a low level staffer for leaking emails is a simpler explanation than he was killed in a robbery gone wrong.

Your simplest explanation requires the following statements to be true:

1. That Seth Rich leaked the emails in the first place. No evidence of this aside from a cryptic implication from someone who has a vested interest in furthering the conspiracy theory. But fine, I will admit it is POSSIBLE that Seth Rich leaked emails.

2. That the DNC would hire someone to murder Seth Rich AFTER he supposedly leaked the emails. Basically, you are claiming that a shadowy organization capable of organizing an assassination would waste those resources on a target whose death brings them zero benefit, given that the emails had already been leaked at that point.

3. That an organization capable of arranging a hit would be so sloppy as to stage a mugging and not take anything. That they would be do sloppy that amateur conspiracy theorists could see through their cunning plan just based on reading news reports.

You have believe that all three of those things are simpler than: mugger tried to mug Seth Rich, mugger shot Seth Rich after a struggle, either by accident or running on sheer adrenaline, frightened by the attention that multiple gunshots might bring, the mugger runs off without stealing anything.

Never mind the fact that your entire theory also hinges on the notion that the content of the leaked emails was damning enough to warrant a retaliatory killing. Or the fact that conservative media outlets have PROVEN to make up details about the case in order to further propagate the discussion.

You are STILL pushing an unverified story as if it is a fact. You are lying about the death of an innocent man in spite of the wishes of his family. APOLOGIZE. FOR LYING. ABOUT SETH RICH.
---

Vlado posted...

Do you think that is clever

It's occam's razor
---

Vlado posted...

What I most want to point out is that impartial people like Ron Paul lean towards my position rather than yours. Stop for a few moments and think why that is.

Ron Paul fucking DESPISES your ideology 100%, arguably more than socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24y0i9T3hFk

Stop for a few moments and think why that is
---

Vlado posted...

What I most want to point out is that impartial people like Ron Paul lean towards my position rather than yours.

uh, just because ron paul dislikes democrats and republicans equally doesn't mean he's impartial. being a libertarian != being impartial.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Ron Paul fucking DESPISES your ideology 100%, arguably more than socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24y0i9T3hFk

Stop for a few moments and think why that is

in retrospect it's funny how during the '16 campaign, muffin never once mentioned what ron paul - literally the mascot of the freedom topic - thought of trump in the freedom topic. the only libertarians (i use the term loosely) he brought up were people like tom woods and bob murphy, who were gushing over how amazing and anti-establishment trump was.
---

Vlado posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Ron Paul with incredible impartiality, as usual, calling out both republicans and democraps. A truly moral man.

"a hero like steven seagal could never be a democrat." - the completely impartial vlado, earlier in this topic

I never claimed to be as impartial as Ron Paul.

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for even a SINGLE shred of evidence about those claims.

There's been several pieces of evidence, you just choose to ignore them.

Let's see them.

Let's see proof of god's existence. Don't you want to be able to function within the confines of your own logic without directly contradicting yourself?
---

Vlado posted...

Bulgaria is a way better place to live than most of the US

Any chance we can have everyone in this topic sig this?

Vlado posted...

400 fake news articles, you mean?

edit: and this if there is enough room in a sig for both
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

What I most want to point out is that impartial people like Ron Paul lean towards my position rather than yours.

uh, just because ron paul dislikes democrats and republicans equally doesn't mean he's impartial. being a libertarian != being impartial.

What is being impartial then? Having no interest in politics? You know very well what I'm talking about.
---

Vlado posted...

What is being impartial then? Having no interest in politics?

well, yes. or not siding with any of the political parties.

ron paul doesn't call out the republicans and democrats for "not protecting liberty" because he's impartial, he does so because he's a libertarian. liberty is so important to him because he's a libertarian.
---

Liberty is important to any sane individual. I'm not a libertarian, and it's incredibly important to me, too.

Meanwhile, everything I've ever said about Syria keep proving true:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-11/us-finally-admits-no-evidence-assad-used-sarin-gas
---

Vlado posted...

Liberty is important to any sane individual.

okay but why is it important to you tho
---

Kenri posted...

Vlado posted...

Liberty is important to any sane individual.

okay but why is it important to you tho

---

Vlado posted...

Liberty is important to any sane individual

Only your own liberty. There's tons of sane people like you who don't give a shit about other people's liberty and in fact want them to be under totalitarian control, as long as you get the good end of the stick. That's why someone like Ron Paul who does care about liberty hates your ideology.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Vlado posted...

Liberty is important to any sane individual

Only your own liberty. There's tons of sane people like you who don't give a shit about other people's liberty and in fact want them to be under totalitarian control, as long as you get the good end of the stick. That's why someone like Ron Paul who does care about liberty hates your ideology.

Oh yeah, let's watch that video.

foolm0r0n posted...

Vlado posted...

What I most want to point out is that impartial people like Ron Paul lean towards my position rather than yours. Stop for a few moments and think why that is.

Ron Paul fucking DESPISES your ideology 100%, arguably more than socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24y0i9T3hFk

Stop for a few moments and think why that is

I 100% agree with what he said, so I don't see why you think he "fucking despises my ideology."

I have no problem admitting that my hopes for Trump are more wishful thinking than realistic. But there's certainly no better viable alternative in US politics at the moment.
---

Vlado posted...

Liberty is important to any sane individual.

of course it is, but it's a matter of gradations. ron paul thinks the government's role should be as limited as possible because otherwise it inflicts on our liberty. i, for instance, wouldn't go THAT far, and i assume you wouldn't either. the fact that he holds liberty in as high regard as he does is because he's a libertarian, not because he's an impartial person.
---

Vlado posted...

I have no problem admitting that my hopes for Trump are more wishful thinking than realistic. But there's certainly no better viable alternative in US politics at the moment.

lol, you spent years arguing that trump is the anti-establishment messiah who's supposed to save us from the deep state and the globalists, and now it takes one 60 second ron paul video for you to throw all of that out of the window? i'm glad you finally saw the light but i can't really take your political opinions seriously if they're changed THIS easily.
---

Liberals before the memo: This will cause civilization to collapse!

did even one liberal in this topic say something like this
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

I have no problem admitting that my hopes for Trump are more wishful thinking than realistic. But there's certainly no better viable alternative in US politics at the moment.

lol, you spent years arguing that trump is the anti-establishment messiah who's supposed to save us from the deep state and the globalists, and now it takes one 60 second ron paul video for you to throw all of that out of the window? i'm glad you finally saw the light but i can't really take your political opinions seriously if they're changed THIS easily.

I'm not throwing anything out of the window. I still have hopes for Trump, but the last year has shown that he's working in an incredibly hostile environment and it won't be easy to achieve what he promised even if he honestly, 100% worked to.
---

Vlado posted...

Trump ... work

lol not a day in his life
---

Vlado posted...

I'm not throwing anything out of the window. I still have hopes for Trump, but the last year has shown that he's working in an incredibly hostile environment and it won't be easy to achieve what he promised even if he honestly, 100% worked to.

i'm not entirely sure what you mean by "hopes for trump," but any scenario is problematic because it contradicts things you have stated before.

if you have "hopes for trump" in the sense that you hope he's going to accomplish what he promised in spite of his environment, then you have to understand that that's not at all what ron paul is saying. he's saying that trump is in an unprincipled politician who cooperates with the republicans and democrats for his own benefit, not that he's a super genuine and well meaning guy who can't achieve what he wants to because of the hostile environment he's working in. the title of the video is "ron paul destroys donald trump in 60 seconds," not "ron paul analyzes the terrible environment trump has to work in in 60 seconds."

if you have "hopes for trump" in the sense that you hope (with nothing to base it on) that he's not an opportunistic politician who doesn't actually want to fight the deep state/globalists, then that's ABSOLUTELY different from what you used to argue. that would mean you're more reserved about trump than you've ever been before. before you were always super confident that trump is an awesome anti-establishment president who does everything he can to fight the deep state/globalists. this can easily be verified by reading this topic. so yes, if this is your current stance, you definitely are throwing something out of the window.
---

You see, there's no problem if a politician is "unprincipled." As long as he gets results.

The title of the video wasn't chosen by Ron Paul.
---

lol at LultimaterilolizerX
---

Vlado posted...

You see, there's no problem if a politician is "unprincipled." As long as he gets results.

it kind of is a problem because trump isn't getting results by default because of his unprincipledness. at least not the kind of results a libertarian would want.

The title of the video wasn't chosen by Ron Paul.

no, but it's clear what he's saying in the video. it's not favorable to trump.
---

Vlado posted...

You see, there's no problem if a politician is "unprincipled." As long as he gets results.

What if you don't get results but you tweet that you got results
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

White powder was sent to Trump Jrs wife

I am on the right but I am celebrating this. That's awesome. Like Christmas in February.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

White powder was sent to Trump Jrs wife

I am on the right but I am celebrating this. That's awesome. Like Christmas in February.

No fool that's her cocaine.
---

I was gonna make that joke but it seemed too easy which also sets up another joke that is too easy
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

I just need people to ask themselves why a family with everything would give that up.

That's a dumbass question, it's because they didn't think they would. The Trump's 100% though the position of President would lead to them become a more powerful force the ever before. Why do yoou think they fought so hard to keep Trump in power at his business? They were ignorant. The only ones who actually knew the truth thought he had no chance and saw it as publicity.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

White powder was sent to Trump Jrs wife. She was hospitalized, and the left is actually celebrating this.

This is literally exactly why the country hates the left. They are sick, sick people.

she wasn't hospitalized, she just went to a hospital. The powder wasn't actually dangerous.

being poisoned. Literally.

literally zero Trumps have been poisoned

I just need people to ask themselves why a family with everything would give that up. Why we hate Wall Street and big business and the man and the media and all these people are literally attacking this family and everyone seems to be cheering it on.

because they didn't have everything, or at least Donald didn't. Even with all the things he already had he wasn't satisfied because he wasn't literally the most important man in the world yet.
---

??????? posted...

she was taken to the hospital as a precaution in case the substance was hazardous, which it wasn't

I also read this.
---

496
---

497
---

498
---

499
---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465
---