November 27, 2021
I recently had a big fight with a liberal on Facebook. I posted it here.
Well, this dimwit is a glutton for punishment.
Michael Carl says:
Hey, so I can see you continued to obsess over me while I was away enjoying the holiday based on the number of times you mentioned my name. 😂 That really warms my heart.
Okay, so I obviously don’t have as much time on my hands as you do, so I’ll be as brief as possible. This is a reply to your comment that begins with "yawn,” FYI, since it’s getting nearly impossible to keep track of your endless yammering.
Let me start out by saying that no less than four of the links you provided are viewpoints from the same person—former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. You used the first link to buttress your opinion that the Steele "dossier” was the origin of the FBI’s investigation back in 2016, but even McCarthy does’t go that far in the article. All he does is try to concoct a theory based solely on innuendo and then tries to discredit certain individuals because it wasn’t explicitly stated what Russia planned to do with the emails from Clinton that they allegedly had in their possession, even though that’s blatantly obvious to anyone who has even a passing understand of kompromat. It also casts aspersions based on a bizarre distinction between use of the term "damaging email” vs "damaging information.” Okay. That’s all? Whew. So while the rest of us marvel at all the many ways in which Trump bent his party and country to the will of Putin/Russia for his own benefit, you’re still over there complaining about dotted i’s and crossed t’s. This, during a time when Trump, after his party nomination was official, removed the Republican policy platform that had been staunchly opposed to Russia, to the astonishment of Republicans and Democrats alike (then later tried to tie the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to a political favor in an extortion scheme that led to his impeachment). He also echoed bizarre Russian talking points periodically, like slamming Montenegro as they were trying to join the EU and NATO (why would any American not want that??? And I’d wager a lot of money that even now Trump couldn’t point to Montenegro on a world map)
Not for nothing, Montenegro is a country where Russia tried to stage a failed coup attempt in 2016. Coincidence? Trump also aggressively pushed the president of Montenegro while on stage with other world leaders at a summit.
Trump also echoed a bizarre bit of Russian propaganda about the reason why Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 was because they were sending terrorists into Russia, which was utter bullsh*t. You’ll probably say it’s not that big a deal, but ask yourself, why would he say that?
We also now know that Trump lied throughout the summer of 2016 when he said he had nothing to do with Russia, but he had a Trump Tower Moscow deal in the works the entire time. Yeah, no conflict of interest there. Maybe that’s some information the public could’ve used in deciding how to vote in November. He slow-walked sanctions against Russia for their election interference until congress finally had to tap him on the shoulder to remind him of that obligation.
Another McCarthy article you linked discussed the FISA situation. And while you and I can agree that it was the reauthorization of the Carter Paige FISA that was problematic, the initial applications were just. And I’ll share just one of the rebuttals to McCarthy here by Daniel Goldman who acquitted himself very well as one of the impeachment lawyers for Trump’s first impeachment:
As for Manafort, holy hell. You offer a defense of him that comes from his own lawyer?? I mean my god. How morally bankrupt must a person be to actually try to defend someone who shared sensitive polling data from the biggest battleground states to a Russian agent (confirmed by Senate investigation) in an attempt to be "made whole” from a debt to a Russian oligarch. That’s what you’re doing, saying nothing of the other charges brought up against him. Our founding fathers worried immensely about foreign influence in our elections, lest we end up with leaders who hold other interests higher than what’s best for our country.
Here’s another resource of how Trump instituted numerous Russia-friendly strategies early on (article is from 2018):
But wait, there’s more! The money laundering done by Russian oligarchs via the purchase of Trump properties should’ve disqualified him as a reasonable candidate from the start. Is this what Eric was talking about when he said that they get all the money they need from Russia? Many other articles available about this topic if you happen to not like this particular source. 😂
And I can’t believe you actually brought up Uranium One—a deal that needed t to be signed off on by something like 13 different department heads—not just Hillary—and has been thoroughly debunked as being anything nefarious. This exposes you as much as anything.
And yes, Biden absolutely did brag about demanding that Ukrainian prosecutor be fired. He did so specifically because that prosecutor was NOT doing his job and was instead turning a blind eye to obvious corruption. Again, widely reported. Try to keep up. For some reason you and your ilk can’t grasp the most basic details. Actually, let me rephrase that. You’re perfectly capable of grasping the most basic details, but you choose to amplify the incorrect conclusions because you’re a hopelessly partisan hack. And so now people like me have to spend time going around and correcting you as much as we can so that other readers won’t be swayed by your falsehoods and misrepresentations.
The next time you’re temped to engage in a political debate on FB, just copy and paste that super-long comment you made from earlier in this thread where you retread all the right-wing conspiracy minded talking points in one fell swoop. Lead with that one and then everyone can just laugh you off from the start and not have to waste time actually engaging with someone who is so willingly divorced from reality. The rest of humanity will thank you.
Who is obsessing Michael Carl? I figured we were done but see you are going to waste more of my time.
First, you conveniently ignore the fact that the Steele Dossier was the sole piece of evidence in the FISA court application. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton and https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fisa-application-steele-dossier-trump-russia-carter-page-wiretap/ They knew the document was paid for by the Clinton campaign and misled the FISA court with it. You cannot deny that - which is why you skirt the issue.
And if you don't like my links (and I just took a few from the top of a search) look for your own. You want me to do all the work for you.
Andy McCarthy was a federal prosecutor who prosecuted Khalid Sheik Muhammed, I might add, and is no slouch where the law is concerned. You obviously miss the point that he's using legal terms and definitions. Bill Clinton, who I am sure was your guy, did this all the time "it depends on what the meaning of is is." Strange how you guys have no problem with that when it serves your purposes.
"it wasn’t explicitly stated what Russia planned to do with the emails from Clinton that they allegedly had in their possession, even though that’s blatantly obvious to anyone who has even a passing understand of kompromat"
So why didn't they use them? Actually, Hillary was the guilty party; she used a private, not secure server to hide her own activities and then wiped that server when it was subpoena'd by Congress.
"So while the rest of us marvel at all the many ways in which Trump bent his party and country to the will of Putin/
You have yet to say how he did this. I pointed out that Mr. Trump in no way acted to benefit the Russians - quite the opposite. You just ignore little details like Trump's support of fracking and American oil and gas production.
Again, I ask how did Trump benefit, and why didn't he use Hillary's e-mails against her?
Even CNN, which made it it's mission to destroy Trump, is now admitting the whole thing was a sham. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html You seem to be the last holdout.
But who can be proven to have colluded with the Russians? Hillary Clinton's camp. The Steele Dossier was produced with the help of Russians. At least one of the sources for the document was a Russian analyst and has been indicted. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/politics/igor-danchenko-arrested/index.html
But, like, Russia dude!
If Trump tried to extort Ukraine why wasn't he convicted in the impeachment? The fact is there never was anything there and if you were an honest man you would admit that. Or I suppose he's guilty because he's guilty in your mind. You guys pulled quotes out of context and then said it was extortion.
There was never any quid-pro-quo offered in the telephone call. It is you who ASSUME that was what Trump was offering. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/25/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-shows-no-quid-pro-/ Read the transcript.
Trump asked the Ukrainians to do what they are supposed to do by treaty. There was a larger corruption investigation ongoing and it just so happened to involve Mr. Biden's cokehead, deviant son. I would add that you seem to have had no problem with Mr. Biden actually openly bragging about forcing the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor looking into his son's corruption. It was no big deal to you. I provided you with the video of Biden bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations and you simply stuck your fingers in your ears and said "I can't hear you!"
So it was o.k. for Biden to threaten to withhold funds but some dark, evil conspiracy for Mr. Trump.
BTW, in case you missed it, Mr. Trump did not actually withhold those funds. And he did not release them under duress; he did it well before the story broke, and he did it with no strings. Oh, and he never said they either obey or he was cutting them off. I know you guys love to read ill will into his words, but that is projection on your part.
And the President has discretion as to when and how foreign aid is to be allocated. I guess you don't know that.
Well, actually I'm sure you do and I'm sure you know this was nothing but a political witch hunt but you hate Trump so very much you can't even admit that to yourself.
As to your bizarre complaint about Trump's Montenegro comments, you clearly know nothing about international affairs or Russia. Montenegro is of little strategic importance to us (or the Russians, for that matterr) but it could be a flashpoint for conflict between the U.S. and one of the world's great powers. If you understand anything about Russia you know it makes them very nervous to have a foreign power so near their border (it's a matter of their history as they've been invaded numerous times) and they want a buffer zone. In fact, the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe was not a good idea in the first place. There needs to be a buffer between NATO and Russia. Clinton and Bush both pushed the Russians by expanding, and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan further worried them as U.S. forces were on their southern border. Russia is not a good country, but they are a powerful one. We have to be realistic (something you liberals fail at) and take this into account.
Trump used Montenegro as an example of a country we would be forced to defend if they went to war with Russia. That was all he said. I would add it is exactly why the Ukraine is not in NATO.
"Trump also echoed a bizarre bit of Russian propaganda about the reason why Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 was because they were sending terrorists into Russia, which was utter bullsh*t."
Prove that! You can't in any way prove it was bullshit.
First, it wasn't Russia that invaded Afghanistan; it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That was actually a different country.
Second, what was the reason? Was it the sunny climate?
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had multiple causes. Afghanistan's government was a vassal state to the Soviet Union but the rebels activity involved the same sort of terrorism employed against the U.S. Trump was not wrong.
In April 28, 1978 there was a coup by Babrak Karmal which overturned the government (which had been steering a middle course between the Soviets and the Americans) and the new government was allied with the Soviets. They invited the Soviets in to defend against the mujihadeen, who were using guerilla tactics aka terrorism.
They may not have been in Russia itself but there was every reason to think they might be coming. We know Russia has been hit by terrorist attacks since the fall of the Soviet Union.
And how does that comment benefit the Russians? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it some sinister conspiracy. From the Soviet perspective that probably WAS the right course of action. And our response - funding the muhihadeen - was right from ours.
"We also now know that Trump lied throughout the summer of 2016 when he said he had nothing to do with Russia, but he had a Trump Tower Moscow deal in the works"
Big effing deal. He has hotels all over the world. Do you really think that was of any importance? Oh, yeah; the Golden Shower incident! That has been proven untrue but like, Russia dude! It was not a lie to say he has no contacts with the Russians; his company may have had a business deal but it was not much of one. The hotel never was built. There was no partnership with any Russian government entity. If Trump had such a cozy relationship with the Russians why wasn't it built?
Yes, Trump slow-walked sanctions, but why? He understood the stupidity of pissing off the regions supreme power. I guess you aren't aware, but the Russians supply most of the natural gas to Europe. I guess you don't think it's a big deal if Eurpe gets it's gas cut off in winter, like the Russians did to Ukraine.
Like it or not he had to actually deal with the Russians (and the Chinese, and everyone else) from a position of realism. Just because you disagree with it hardly makes him some "Russian asset".
So you are worried about foreign money in American politics. Where were you when the Chinese were funnelling money to Bill Clinton in '96 in return for his waiver for Loral Aerospace to help them fix their satellite launch vehicles (giving them ICBM technology)? Remember James Riady and Charlie Trie funnelling Chinese cash to Clinton? Or for that matter Hillary's uranium one deal? Strange how you now find your concerns.
And what was Eric Trump speaking about when he said that about having the money they needed from Russia? He was talking about the deal to build a hotel in Moscow, you know, the one that never happened. Duh!
He had funding for a hotel from Russian investors; I'm shocked! Nobody ever funded a golf course from foreign investors.
And this has never been confirmed and has been denied by Eric Trump. It was based on a golf writer named James Dodson who may or may not be honest, and may or may not be remembering correctly, and may or may not have an ax to grind. But it's gospel to you because it makes Trump look bad.
It's utterly amazing how much you can spin from moonbeams and sugar. But in the end you have nothing. Blanks.
But like Russia dude!
You and your leftist buddies are forever taking things out of context then imparting deep, dark, conspiratorial shadows to them.
Uh, Hillary brokered the deal. Yes, it was rubber stamped. And then Bill got a speaking gig in Moscow for a forty five minute speech for three quarters of a million bucks. And Russian donors gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
And if you think for a minute Hillary Clinton couldn't have gotten approval for this you are naive indeed.
And even if that wasn't the case, it was the Obama Administration that allowed this to happen. So if Hillary is innocent (and why should we think she is given the money she was raking in) it still sits squarely on your party.
Oh, and given the poor health suffered by so many people who have bucked the Clintons, do you really think they wouldn't get what they wanted here?
At least one Russian - a guy named Vadim Mikerin - went to prison over it. The deal stunk to high heaven. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20190625/109694/HHRG-116-II06-20190625-SD004.pdf The only reason this didn't go further was that the investigation was headed by Rod Rosenstein, you know, the guy who knifed his boss in the back and suggested a coup against him.
"And yes, Biden absolutely did brag about demanding that Ukrainian prosecutor be fired. He did so specifically because that prosecutor was NOT doing his job and was instead turning a blind eye to obvious corruption."
Now you show yourself to be horribly dishonest. Biden was in no way trying to get his own son investigated. That is bald-faced lie and you know it.
For some reason you and your ilk can't grasp basic information.
If Biden wanted his son investigated for corruption why didn't he ask his own Justice Department to look into it?
That's a cute trick. And it's strange you attack Donald Trump, who was doing exactly what you are tyring to claim Biden did. Dishonest in no small measure.
If Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin wasn't doing his job, why was he investigating Burisma? Hmm? And why did it come to Biden's attention at that time?
The Hill, hardly a right wing site, debunks this claim. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
And U.S. officials apologized to the Ukrainian government for lying about the matter. https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation
Try to keep up.
The Daily Caller also deals with this. https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/report-affidavit-ukrainian-prosecutor-joe-biden-removed-burisma-investigation/
Burisma's own legal team called it "false information".
And why did Burisma's lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of Viktor Shokin's firing?
The Ukrainians tried to get this to the U.S. government for some time, even hiring a lawyer to try to gain access, to no avail.
Shokin said he was looking into $3 million in fees Hunter Biden and his partners had acquired through Barisma - hardly small potatoes.
He was forced out BECAUSE he was looking into corruption, not because he was ignoring it.
I could go on but the point has been made. Your spurious claims are just that.
"Actually, let me rephrase that. You’re perfectly capable of grasping the most basic details, but you choose to amplify the incorrect conclusions because you’re a hopelessly partisan hack."
Boy, if THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black!
No, I am devoted to the truth, something that is clearly outside of your worldview.
I've had to waste far too much time correcting your lies and mischaracterizations. And frankly I've blown you out of the water here but you are too arrogant to see that. Nothing you have said is even remotely defensible.
You've been an amusing buffoon, but it's time to go back to speaking to grownups. I've enjoyed watching you twist and squirm and spew your venom but in the end you only beclown yourself. The only reason I maintained this discussion was for the benefit of others, who by now have probably dropped off. I fear you are a lost cause. Just another frothing-at-the-mouth partisan leftie. And you accuse me of conspiracy theories when you have done nothing but spin your own.
You really need to grow up and learn something about the facts.
41 queries taking 0.0364 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.