Renzatic on 16/10/2020 at 03:56
I take it back then. They got one.
...but it's still a far cry from the mass exposure of gross corruption you claim it to be. After all, if the Steele Dossier were entirely fabricated, and all the proceeding FISA warrants were based upon it, we would've seen a lot more indictments beyond one guy making a suspect change in an email.
Pyrian on 16/10/2020 at 04:47
It's hard to make a big deal out of copying something from one part of a FISA application to another. It was illegal and wrong and everything, but it wasn't substantive, the information was going to be on the application regardless. It stinks of... Clerical error. It sure as heck doesn't implicate Biden in doing - checks notes - exactly what Trump is literally doing right now.
New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes. That would've been enough to swing the vote to Gore in 2000. And before that, ummm... 1876?
Renzatic on 16/10/2020 at 05:03
Quote Posted by Pyrian
It stinks of... Clerical error. It sure as heck doesn't implicate Biden in doing -
checks notes - exactly what Trump is literally doing right now.
To be fair, it's a little more than a clerical error. He did list Page as a non-source, despite the fact that he actually was a CIA source.
The question is, does it make a huge amount of difference to his case? The actions that brought him under suspicion were done entirely on his own volition, and the Horowitz investigation found that the FBI had justifiable reason for said suspicion, so apparently it didn't.
In the end, that Page wasn't hung out to dry is actually proof against a grand conspiracy against Trump. If the FBI were acting at the behest of the Deep State, wouldn't they have used Page as an example in their witch hunt against Trump, rather than investigate him, then say "well, he did some fishy stuff, but we weren't able to find any evidence of criminal activity or intent?"
...hell, you could say the same thing about the Mueller Report in general. If the whole thing was an attempt to remove a legally elected president from power, why didn't the Deep State take that one extra steps, and fabricate evidence against him? They allegedly have the entire US intelligence apparatus at their disposal. You'd think that generating a few fake documents wouldn't be too difficult for them, especially when you consider they supposedly did just that to justify the whole witch hunt to begin with.
SubJeff on 16/10/2020 at 08:24
Let's face it - Trump is an old fat guy and he survived Covid.
Nothing can stop him.
Pyrian on 16/10/2020 at 12:56
SubJeff here with the hero worship.
SubJeff on 16/10/2020 at 13:12
You've read my political leanings perfectly.
nbohr1more on 16/10/2020 at 13:44
Quote Posted by Renzatic
To be fair, it's a little more than a clerical error. He did list Page as a non-source, despite the fact that he actually was a CIA source.
The question is, does it make a huge amount of difference to his case? The actions that brought him under suspicion were done entirely on his own volition, and the Horowitz investigation found that the FBI had justifiable reason for said suspicion, so apparently it didn't.
In the end, that Page wasn't hung out to dry is actually proof against a grand conspiracy against Trump. If the FBI were acting at the behest of the Deep State, wouldn't they have used Page as an example in their witch hunt against Trump, rather than investigate him, then say "well, he did some fishy stuff, but we weren't able to find any evidence of criminal activity or intent?"
...hell, you could say the same thing about the Mueller Report in general. If the whole thing was an attempt to remove a legally elected president from power, why didn't the Deep State take that one extra steps, and fabricate evidence against him? They allegedly have the entire US intelligence apparatus at their disposal. You'd think that generating a few fake documents wouldn't be too difficult for them, especially when you consider they supposedly did just that to justify the whole witch hunt to begin with.
Because Trump has friends in the NSA.
Admiral Rogers (NSA) told Trump about what was happening with Trump Tower.
The Mueller Team is so dumb that they tried to claim that Russian "State Sponsored Hackers" used freeware CCleaner to cover their tracks.
They must have gotten gun shy about fabricating things when the Trump team traced the funding of the dossier back to Hillary and won the lawsuit against Perkins Coie.
The same reason that Crowdstrike recanted the "DNC hacking" claim when put under oath.
They know that the evidence exists and all they can do is peddle soft lies as propaganda unless an aligned Democrat gets elected POTUS
and can purge the NSA of Trump allies. (And kill all the former CIA whistle-blowers who have defended Trump, such as Kevin Shipp).
heywood on 16/10/2020 at 13:54
I'm not a big TV viewer, but whenever I'm home from work in time, I watch WMUR-TV for news while making dinner and a local interest program while eating. They say they aired the ad 8 times over two days. I don't know what time slots, but I didn't see it. Eight ads over two days is a pretty meager effort. We get bombarded with political ads here. We're in the peak of the campaign right now and roughly half of the prime time TV advertising is political. In a typical hour, we see multiple ads from the Biden campaign, and they're lame. The Lincoln project stuff is much better. If you could take half of what's being spent by the Biden campaign on TV ads and use it to air some of the Lincoln project's work, it would have more effect.
I watch way more YouTube than TV and I'm seeing a lot of campaign ads there too, but nothing yet from the Lincoln project.
It's foolish to assume that Biden has NH in the bag based on polls. At this time in 2016, the polls showed Clinton comfortably up by 10% here and she ended up winning a dead heat by<3000 votes. A similar thing happened nationally. Polls under-represent Trump voters. 2016 proved that. There was a lot of discussion about the accuracy of polling in the aftermath of the election, but it seems like everyone forgot about that.
The enthusiasm gap here is strikingly evident, with Trump supporters showing their support more visibly and strongly than in 2016. In contrast, you'd hardly know Biden is running. A lawn sign here or there, that's it. Clinton's support was much more visible.
demagogue on 16/10/2020 at 14:59
Does anybody want to tell Trump what the Babylon Bee is?
Quote:
(
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10165630744635725) Donald J. Trump
Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News - Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big Tech
Quote:
The Babylon Bee
(
https://babylonbee.com/news/twitter-shuts-down-entire-network-to-slow-spread-of-negative-biden-news) Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—In a last-ditch effort to stop negative stories about Joe Biden and his family from spreading, Twitter shut down its entire social network Thursday.
After seeing account after account tweet out one particularly bad story, CEO Jack Dorsey realized he had to take action. Dorsey smashed a glass box in his office reading "Break In Case Of Bad Publicity For Democrats." Inside the case was a sledgehammer for smashing Twitter's servers.
"Red alert -- shut the servers down! Shut them all down!"
Dorsey ran downstairs and started smashing as many computers as he could, but he did need to ask for some help, as the hammer was pretty heavy. None of the programmers could lift the hammer, either. Eventually, they managed to program a robot to pick up the sledgehammer and smash the servers.
After hearing the Twitter employees talk about critical theory, the robot got woke and began attacking all the cis white males.
Pyrian on 16/10/2020 at 15:33
Quote Posted by heywood
At this time in 2016, the polls showed Clinton comfortably up by 10% here and she ended up winning a dead heat by<3000 votes. A similar thing happened nationally. Polls under-represent Trump voters. 2016 proved that.
Polling averages put Clinton up in the national popular vote by 3%, she won the popular vote by 2%. That's about as good as polls can be expected to get; the expected error is up to 4%. Blame the pundits who took an election clearly well within the margin of error and called it a sure thing.
