Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
Just now, notre dame joe said:

There will be a 'scathing' report that blames lack of training or some other wishy washy sweeping it under the rug.  Who polices the police?  Generally other police who wouldn't want to face their own heat. 

 

The judgment will be left to History which will (eventually) tell how Obama's government spied on the opposing party and tried to destroy the subsequent President.  And as usual no one went to jail.

Fart noises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12695

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

There will be a 'scathing' report that blames lack of training or some other wishy washy sweeping it under the rug.  Who polices the police?  Generally other police who wouldn't want to face their own heat. 

 

The judgment will be left to History which will (eventually) tell how Obama's government spied on the opposing party and tried to destroy the subsequent President.  And as usual no one went to jail.

The most corrupt presidency in at least modern history and you just can’t help but try and obfuscate and point the finger at the black guy?

Cool story bro.

Edited by Dnaguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What the fuck are you talking about? This was your last post in the exchange.  Don't try to deflect if you never really sought to engage in good faith Jimmy. It's like two pages back, so you really aren't gonna fool anyone. 

You did your usual "so we can all agree" bullshit -- I'll admit, I haven't gone back to check the EXACT language -- and it wasn't something I had agreed to at all.  I figured I'd play nice and try to review it later.  Life got in the way.

Here's the deal, and we've been over this many many times:  you are a HORRIBLE communicator.  I give up.  Spew your wonk-speak, nobody buys it, you think you're making grand points that nobody can refute, and in reality you just wear people down because you're a pain in the ass to deal with.

I tried my best to get you to clarify your thoughts.  I failed.  Consider me a failure.  LMAO.  Yay, 'stasis!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1957

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I didn’t actually think that you were ever really engaging in good faith, but thanks for confirming. 

Come on Man. Spill the beans.  What do you and Lady G have cookin up in the kitchen? 

Let me guess.  Barr and Durham are gonna get to the bottom of why Hillary hasn’t been locked up yet. The only reason has to be deep state and biased investigators!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I didn’t actually think that you were ever really engaging in good faith, but thanks for confirming. 

I was completely engaging in good faith.  You, however, were not.  This is not uncommon, and frankly, it's not surprising.  I spent quite a few posts trying to get you to clarify you position, but ultimately, you resorted to your typical "so we all agree" bullshit.

Frankly, I don't know why I tried.  Bad move on my part.  Anyone who goes back and reads our exchange in this regard is likely to back me, save yourself, but like I said:  you win.  You managed to clarify nothing about your position, but yeah, you win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was completely engaging in good faith.  You, however, were not.  This is not uncommon, and frankly, it's not surprising.  I spent quite a few posts trying to get you to clarify you position, but ultimately, you resorted to your typical "so we all agree" bullshit.

Frankly, I don't know why I tried.  Bad move on my part.  Anyone who goes back and reads our exchange in this regard is likely to back me, save yourself, but like I said:  you win.  You managed to clarify nothing about your position, but yeah, you win.


Please feel free to quote any portion of our exchange to drive your point home. You know that you are clowning yourself to any body who can simply read two or three pages back jimmy. I mean, I guess the “I’m too stupid to comprehend plain language” is a novel tact, but not a particularly persuasive one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:


Please feel free to quote any portion of our exchange to drive your point home. You know that you are clowning yourself to any body who can simply read two or three pages back jimmy. I mean, I guess the “I’m too stupid to comprehend plain language” is a novel tact, but not a particularly persuasive one. 

Like I said, you win.  I'm just a simpleton who can't understand the written word, and I'm so so lucky to have succeeded as much as I have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1957

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:


Please feel free to quote any portion of our exchange to drive your point home. You know that you are clowning yourself to any body who can simply read two or three pages back jimmy. I mean, I guess the “I’m too stupid to comprehend plain language” is a novel tact, but not a particularly persuasive one. 

And clowning on one’s self is something you’ll have to swallow unless you stop holding out on us and tell us what is going to take down the deep state house of cards and finally exonerate trump and the GOP.

Could it possibly be Barr giving Lady G some fundraising material something something about the scary deep state Steele Dossier? It couldn’t be that since you are way too savvy to fall for something so obviously corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You should quote the sections that you are struggling with and I would be happy to help you out. 

Oh no, I'm not THAT stupid.  I'm just run of the mill stupid.  The next time you engage in good faith will be the first.  Shame on me for thinking you'd do otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh no, I'm not THAT stupid.  I'm just run of the mill stupid.  The next time you engage in good faith will be the first.  Shame on me for thinking you'd do otherwise.

I am offering to help clarify any thing from our exchange that you have problems with. You claim there is a lot that you struggle with. Please provide an example for us. Not sure why you continue to deflect. This is your chance to dunk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh no, I'm not THAT stupid.  I'm just run of the mill stupid.  The next time you engage in good faith will be the first.  Shame on me for thinking you'd do otherwise.

You really shouldn’t bother. We all recognize how he debates. It’s the opposite of good faith and totally pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am offering to help clarify any thing from our exchange that you have problems with. You claim there is a lot that you struggle with. Please provide an example for us. Not sure why you continue to deflect. This is your chance to dunk.  

You're the smart guy, you should be able to go back and review our exchange, self-reflect, and grow.  I'm surely not smart enough to help you.  I defer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texaspython

Texaspython 231

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am offering to help clarify any thing from our exchange that you have problems with. You claim there is a lot that you struggle with. Please provide an example for us. Not sure why you continue to deflect. This is your chance to dunk.  

Just read the exchange, what the hell are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're the smart guy, you should be able to go back and review our exchange, self-reflect, and grow.  I'm surely not smart enough to help you.  I defer.

OK high integrity Jimmy.  You have claimed repeatedly that you don't understand my position.  I have tried to explain it.  You continue to say that you don't understand it because I lack communication skills.  I have asked you to provide examples of where we are breaking down so that I can help you understand.  You tell me that I should be able to go back and divine your insufficiency by my self. This is all obvious to the other people reading along Jimmy.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texaspython

Texaspython 231

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK high integrity Jimmy.  You have claimed repeatedly that you don't understand my position.  I have tried to explain it.  You continue to say that you don't understand it because I lack communication skills.  I have asked you to provide examples of where we are breaking down so that I can help you understand.  You tell me that I should be able to go back and divine your insufficiency by my self. This is all obvious to the other people reading along Jimmy.   

1. You’re mad about the FISA act while willfully ignoring the legitimate underpinnings of the law.

2. You’re concerned about it’s use as a political tool. Guess what? We all are.

3. You have a basic misunderstanding about how surveillance warrants are obtained. It’s impossible to swear to a warrant application where you certify that all the information contained within is 100% verified. There will be thousands of warrant signed tomorrow in this country with unverified information.

4. The Steele Dossier’s information was in fact, very reliable. Most of the information contained within was verified and true. The warrant for surveillance was proper or at least the application’s submittal  was proper.

 

Edited by Texaspython
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

4. The Steele Dossier’s information was in fact, very reliable. Most of the information contained within was verified and true. The warrant for surveillance was proper or at least the application’s submittal  was proper.

And y'all think that I am the one trolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texaspython

Texaspython 231

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

And y'all think that I am the one trolling. 

The fact that you don’t understand that goes to show you literally have no idea how warrants work. You also have no idea how these same warrants and the people who work them keep your ass safe everyday of your miserable/ignorant life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47262

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK high integrity Jimmy.  You have claimed repeatedly that you don't understand my position.  I have tried to explain it.  You continue to say that you don't understand it because I lack communication skills.  I have asked you to provide examples of where we are breaking down so that I can help you understand.  You tell me that I should be able to go back and divine your insufficiency by my self. This is all obvious to the other people reading along Jimmy.   

On my deathbed I'm pretty sure I will regret never being smart enough to understand what Anastasis was trying to tell me.  I'll just add him to the list, along with Gandhi, my Mom, and Bill Belichick.  

Oh wells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3555

Posted
Posted
There will be a 'scathing' report that blames lack of training or some other wishy washy sweeping it under the rug.  Who polices the police?  Generally other police who wouldn't want to face their own heat. 
 
The judgment will be left to History which will (eventually) tell how Obama's government spied on the opposing party and tried to destroy the subsequent President.  And as usual no one went to jail.
Go suck some more Trump cock. He needs the money and we know it makes you feel special.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

On my deathbed I'm pretty sure I will regret never being smart enough to understand what Anastasis was trying to tell me.  I'll just add him to the list, along with Gandhi, my Mom, and Bill Belichick.  

Oh wells.

Why do you have such a hard time just quoting me and dunking Jimmy. You can do it  I believe in you.

200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1957

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Please, tell us also what you know about DNS server logs.  

DNS server? Are you speaking in code? Is this the hint Brad Parscale gave you that will open our eyes and show us how very mean the feds were to Trump? If we combine this mysterious server with the very bad Steele Dossier and mix in some hand waving, BOOM, trump is now eligible for a third term!! You’ve finally caught the chicken my friend. Congrats

chicken pants GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Man who knew annie would take the trump tax news so poorly, this is more bluster than usual whenever there's negative trump news

You have to give Anastasis a little credit. He is really good at this. Whatever Putin is paying him, it isnt enough.  He can really lay down cover that the trolls can't. For his sake, I hope he is making at least 100x what they make per post. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23724

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

He didn’t miss it. He was too big of a pussy to break with precedent. 

His primary purpose was always to protect the bureau. You don't hire a company man like him with any other expectation. Of course, that didn't prevent the hagiafication of Bob Mueller on this thread and more generally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...