The FBI is weighing an arrest and perp walk for Comey — and suspended an agent for refusing to help, sources say

[ModernDiogenes]

If you dispute GROK, tell me why. At least give me the time stamp in the video if you don't know hoe to excerpt.

The video was posted over seven years ago when the particular meeting of Trump and Putin took place.

 

[Paradoxical]

The video was posted over seven years ago when the particular meeting of Trump and Putin took place.

The video was posted over seven years ago when the particular meeting of Trump and Putin took place.

Do your work. NO ONE wants to waste 15 minutes listening intently to something that is not there.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Do your work. NO ONE wants to waste 15 minutes listening intently to something that is not there.

As I stated. It’s there. I heard it at the time. I heard it again when I replayed it before posting it.

Denali of its existence is an obvious, and futile, attempt at diversion.

Just like refuting the rest of the recorded public record of Trump’s myriad unethical acts that show him to be precisely the massively unethical person of bad character and likely pathological case he is.

 

[Paradoxical]

As I stated. It’s there. I heard it at the time. I heard it again when I replayed it before posting it.

Denali of its existence is an obvious, and futile, attempt at diversion.

Just like refuting the rest of the recorded public record of Trump’s myriad unethical acts that show him to be precisely the massively unethical person of bad character and likely pathological case he is.

Transcrript and time stamp so I can confirm. Thanks again.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Transcrript and time stamp so I can confirm. Thanks

Why, so you can deny it even though it’s there. It will be good effort invested after bad. You are requiring good will you have not earned based on past behavior of yours. I’m not going to play Charlie Brown to your Lucy and attempt to kick that ball. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Paradoxical]

Why, so you can deny it even though it’s there. It will be good effort invested after bad. You are requiring good will you have not earned based on past behavior of yours. I’m not going to play Charlie Brown to your Lucy and attempt to kick that ball. Thanks, but no thanks.

View attachment 67593126

Your reply tells me it is not there. It was another poster who did a simiolar thing to me well over a year ago on a prionted article that he claimed supported his post. I read the article that was a long one and it refuted his post. I then went back to him and he insited "it was there and read it", doubting that I did red it. I was so peeved I read it again very carefully and sure enough, he was 100% wrong. I asked for the excerpt. He said he would get it. I never heard and brought it up again and he feigned upset and didn't copme back. He did the same thing more than once again and refused to give an excerpt.


PS. I hope this helps.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Your reply tells me it is not there. It was another poster who did a simiolar thing to me well over a year ago on a prionted article that he claimed supported his post. I read the article that was a long one and it refuted his post. I then went back to him and he insited "it was there and read it", doubting that I did red it. I was so peeved I read it again very carefully and sure enough, he was 100% wrong. I asked for the excerpt. He said he would get it. I never heard and brought it up again and he feigned upset and didn't copme back. He did the same thing more than once again and refused to give an excerpt.


PS. I hope this helps.

Well this video is short clip from a news show. It shows Putin being asked the doec8fuc question you quoted. It has Putin being ttanls6ed by the Russian interpreter as answering in the affirmative.

You do as you please. It’s old news. Many here have already seen it, as I have, at the time. They know it says what I claim.

 

[Ƶ∅𝒹i͎αꞓ]

Well this video is short clip from a news show. It shows Putin being asked the doec8fuc question you quoted. It has Putin being ttanls6ed by the Russian interpreter as answering in the affirmative.

You do as you please. It’s old news. Many here have already seen it, as I have, at the time. They know it says what I claim.

I like to dig for facts and stuff and found something fun.



Essentially the point is mucked by translations, overlapping questions, and Putin absolutely knows how to thread the truth and answer in the affirmative without admitting guilt to get away with answering a two parter.

Either way, anybody with a brain that can navigate the internets knows Russia had troll bot and human farms to generating propaganda to help Trump win. Don't need a transcript to figure that out.

Either way, the transcript Paradox wants is found here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/

Oh no, Trump 404'd it



I wonder why?

 

[Paradoxical]

I like to dig for facts and stuff and found something fun.



Essentially the point is mucked by translations, overlapping questions, and Putin absolutely knows how to thread the truth and answer in the affirmative without admitting guilt to get away with answering a two parter.

Either way, anybody with a brain that can navigate the internets knows Russia had troll bot and human farms to generating propaganda to help Trump win. Don't need a transcript to figure that out.

Either way, the transcript Paradox wants is found here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/

Oh no, Trump 404'd it



I wonder why?

You have NO proof of that, except for some FBI claims that they did not verify. It's easy to say your servers were hacked by Russia if you are the DNC when no one is going to refute that if they are your buddies, like the FBI was and is with the Democrats. In fact, it is far more likely that any hacking was internal or done by Seth Rich, who was killed on the streets with nothing stolen from him.

The FBI says "Russia tried to influence the election"? Their only proof was some alleged posts on Twitter and Facebook. Yet no one ever saw any such posts, did they? There were posts that were highly critical of Trump as well that supposedly came from Russia. Where were or are these posts. For all we know they could be talking about some debate chat room like this, in which case the lies and deceit come from Democrats and progressives who, for all we know, may be from some teens in Russia.

 

[Ƶ∅𝒹i͎αꞓ]

You have NO proof of that, except for some FBI claims that they did not verify. It's easy to say your servers were hacked by Russia if you are the DNC when no one is going to refute that if they are your buddies, like the FBI was and is with the Democrats. In fact, it is far more likely that any hacking was internal or done by Seth Rich, who was killed on the streets with nothing stolen from him.

The FBI says "Russia tried to influence the election"? Their only proof was some alleged posts on Twitter and Facebook. Yet no one ever saw any such posts, did they? There were posts that were highly critical of Trump as well that supposedly came from Russia. Where were or are these posts. For all we know they could be talking about some debate chat room like this, in which case the lies and deceit come from Democrats and progressives who, for all we know, may be from some teens in Russia.

I pick and choose what I address too.

I find you interesting. You seem to simultaneously agree with me that Russia is the kind of country that does these large scale hacking operations and propaganda distributions, just like we do and all the rest of the more competitive countries, but need it in triplicate on your desk evidence if someone on the left claims it happens.

 

[Paradoxical]

I pick and choose what I address too.

I find you interesting. You seem to simultaneously agree with me that Russia is the kind of country that does these large scale hacking operations and propaganda distributions, just like we do and all the rest of the more competitive countries, but need it in triplicate on your desk evidence if someone on the left claims it happens.

I go by logic and common sense when there is no way for me or anyone to prove something like whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. In this case, there is ample evidence that the FBI hated Trump's guts because he was a threat to their power and cushy jobs, with one guy Thibault demanding that media not run the Hunter laptop story, Strzok and his girlfriend calling us Walmarters and about how much they hated Trump, another top guy Weissman attending Hillary events, Comey's wife and kids campaigning for her.

Is it more likely knowing this that the FBI was biased or unbiased and would want to make it appear that Hillary lost because of Russia?

 

[Ƶ∅𝒹i͎αꞓ]

I go by logic and common sense when there is no way for me or anyone to prove something like whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. In this case, there is ample evidence that the FBI hated Trump's guts because he was a threat to their power and cushy jobs, with one guy Thibault demanding that media not run the Hunter laptop story, Strzok and his girlfriend calling us Walmarters and about how much they hated Trump, another top guy Weissman attending Hillary events, Comey's wife and kids campaigning for her.

Is it more likely knowing this that the FBI was biased or unbiased and would want to make it appear that Hillary lost because of Russia?

Whether our not something is more likely that not does not an undeniable truth make. So no, I don't view it as undeniable truth that the FBI had the had the means to back up their implications and relied on a lot of others filling in the blank. It is undeniable truth that Russia does activities like this. Means it makes the claim they attempted to infiltrate into our election process a more than 0% chance but less than 100%, and really, they would have helped either Clinton or Trump based on what was best for Russia, not either of them.

 

[Paradoxical]

Whether our not something is more likely that not does not an undeniable truth make. So no, I don't view it as undeniable truth that the FBI had the had the means to back up their implications and relied on a lot of others filling in the blank. It is undeniable truth that Russia does activities like this. Means it makes the claim they attempted to infiltrate into our election process a more than 0% chance but less than 100%, and really, they would have helped either Clinton or Trump based on what was best for Russia, not either of them.

I submit to you that your line of reasoning is the problem in the world today. Instead of using logic, reason, and probability, humans are now resorting to saying "There is no proof of........" and of course there isn't. OJ Simpson got off because some jurors thought cops hated blacks and planted evidence, ignoring bloody footprints from Bruno Magli shoes, blood in his car, and mounds of other circumstantial evidence. I use the resurrection as an example because as ludicrous an idea as that is, no one can disprove it. If we always demand 100% proof like an unaltered photo from a home video camera showing a guy stabbing his wife, we will never get anywhere.

Yes, Russia is not above spying on us or even tinkering around to try to make someone win. But what is the likelihood that they would resort to social media posts and did when no one that you know of, or I know of, saw any such mean posts. Is it more likely the FBI, known Trump haters and assassins, claimed that or that it happened? Remember, this is the same group who infiltrated Twitter to demand conservative posts be taken down.

 

[Ƶ∅𝒹i͎αꞓ]

I submit to you that your line of reasoning is the problem in the world today. Instead of using logic, reason, and probability, humans are now resorting to saying "There is no proof of........" and of course there isn't. OJ Simpson got off because some jurors thought cops hated blacks and planted evidence, ignoring bloody footprints from Bruno Magli shoes, blood in his car, and mounds of other circumstantial evidence. I use the resurrection as an example because as ludicrous an idea as that is, no one can disprove it. If we always demand 100% proof like an unaltered photo from a home video camera showing a guy stabbing his wife, we will never get anywhere.

Yes, Russia is not above spying on us or even tinkering around to try to make someone win. But what is the likelihood that they would resort to social media posts and did when no one that you know of, or I know of, saw any such mean posts. Is it more likely the FBI, known Trump haters and assassins, claimed that or that it happened? Remember, this is the same group who infiltrated Twitter to demand conservative posts be taken down.

Plausible deniability is always there unless you have that level of undeniable proof though.

And your logic circles a little here. That OJ was guilty (and was) but my line of thinking is what got me off (I can see that), and that the evidence provided was enough. Yet you claim that you know beyond a shadow of doubt Russia didn't use social media to spread propaganda because you haven't seen 100% proof of that, while admitting they can and would and want to, but didn't? Social media posts can be from anyone in the world, and there isn't much you can do to trace or verify it. Especially if they use proxies, as any professional troll, homegrown or abroad, would. Meaning the likelihood of Russia spreading misinformation on social media more than 0, them hacking into any and all election related computers more than 0, and doing efforts to help Trump more than 0. I don't think my logic is a problem here, where I recognize they likely did it but didn't amount to the high level scandal it was used more to hurt Trump with than claim moral authority. Our country does the shame shit, and seeing those in the FBI know that but us justifications to claim "it is different when we do it" a rather hollow claim worth believing 100%

 

[Paradoxical]

Plausible deniability is always there unless you have that level of undeniable proof though.

And your logic circles a little here. That OJ was guilty (and was) but my line of thinking is what got me off (I can see that), and that the evidence provided was enough. Yet you claim that you know beyond a shadow of doubt Russia didn't use social media to spread propaganda because you haven't seen 100% proof of that, while admitting they can and would and want to, but didn't? Social media posts can be from anyone in the world, and there isn't much you can do to trace or verify it. Especially if they use proxies, as any professional troll, homegrown or abroad, would. Meaning the likelihood of Russia spreading misinformation on social media more than 0, them hacking into any and all election related computers more than 0, and doing efforts to help Trump more than 0. I don't think my logic is a problem here, where I recognize they likely did it but didn't amount to the high level scandal it was used more to hurt Trump with than claim moral authority. Our country does the shame shit, and seeing those in the FBI know that but us justifications to claim "it is different when we do it" a rather hollow claim worth believing 100%

Other than from the lying FBI who did you get that from?

 

[SavannahMann]

I submit to you that your line of reasoning is the problem in the world today. Instead of using logic, reason, and probability, humans are now resorting to saying "There is no proof of........" and of course there isn't. OJ Simpson got off because some jurors thought cops hated blacks and planted evidence, ignoring bloody footprints from Bruno Magli shoes, blood in his car, and mounds of other circumstantial evidence. I use the resurrection as an example because as ludicrous an idea as that is, no one can disprove it. If we always demand 100% proof like an unaltered photo from a home video camera showing a guy stabbing his wife, we will never get anywhere.

Yes, Russia is not above spying on us or even tinkering around to try to make someone win. But what is the likelihood that they would resort to social media posts and did when no one that you know of, or I know of, saw any such mean posts. Is it more likely the FBI, known Trump haters and assassins, claimed that or that it happened? Remember, this is the same group who infiltrated Twitter to demand conservative posts be taken down.

Good Lord. You have to go back to 1995 to find a claim of racial bias? OJ was tried in 1995. I watched the trial. The Defense attacked every witness, every single piece of evidence. Catching Detective Mark Fuhrman in a lie and getting him to plead the fifth on the stand cast significant doubt on the evidence he had collected.

The Defense used every trick in the book, and made some new tricks up along the way. It wasn't racial. It was an example of brilliant Legal work by a lot of very expensive attorneys, expensive because they were able to demand that kind of money because they won what appeared to be unwindable cases before. It's like a Race Car Driver. If you own a Race Car, you want the best driver you can get, and you're going to pay a lot of money for one with a record of winning. Only in the OJ Case is such a thing somehow racial bias.

When you have the Lead Detective on the stand pleading the Fifth, because he got caught in a lie under oath, and later pleaded no contest to charges that he committed perjury, you have a serious problem with the prosecution. The Defense attorneys are supposed to do that. They're supposed to question everything that the Prosecution claims. It is the job of the Prosecution to prove the suspect did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was one of the things I was disappointed with regarding the Chauvin Trial. The Defense just let a lot of information go by, not even challenging some of the evidence. I don't think it would have worked, but you take the swing at the ball you are pitched.

Find something more recent than OJ already. It just shows how weak your claims are. Not to mention absolutely wrong.

 

[Paradoxical]

Good Lord. You have to go back to 1995 to find a claim of racial bias? OJ was tried in 1995. I watched the trial. The Defense attacked every witness, every single piece of evidence. Catching Detective Mark Fuhrman in a lie and getting him to plead the fifth on the stand cast significant doubt on the evidence he had collected.

The Defense used every trick in the book, and made some new tricks up along the way. It wasn't racial. It was an example of brilliant Legal work by a lot of very expensive attorneys, expensive because they were able to demand that kind of money because they won what appeared to be unwindable cases before. It's like a Race Car Driver. If you own a Race Car, you want the best driver you can get, and you're going to pay a lot of money for one with a record of winning. Only in the OJ Case is such a thing somehow racial bias.

When you have the Lead Detective on the stand pleading the Fifth, because he got caught in a lie under oath, and later pleaded no contest to charges that he committed perjury, you have a serious problem with the prosecution. The Defense attorneys are supposed to do that. They're supposed to question everything that the Prosecution claims. It is the job of the Prosecution to prove the suspect did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was one of the things I was disappointed with regarding the Chauvin Trial. The Defense just let a lot of information go by, not even challenging some of the evidence. I don't think it would have worked, but you take the swing at the ball you are pitched.

Find something more recent than OJ already. It just shows how weak your claims are. Not to mention absolutely wrong.

Don't tell me there is still one guy in the world who thinks OJ was innocent? Please~!

 

[SavannahMann]

Don't tell me there is still one guy in the world who thinks OJ was innocent? Please~!

I didn't say that. I said the Defense did a fantastic job. And they did. Even the DNA evidence was tainted by Furhman's perjury and subsequent pleading the fifth. That and the DNA expert after claiming the odds of a false positive were something one in five million, had no answer when the Defense pointed out that statistically there were about ten people in the Los Angeles Basin that would match.

Reasonable doubt. It's a thing. A thing that Trump couldn't manage to pull off in his trial largely because he wanted to micromanage his defense team instead of hiring the best, paying them on time and well, and then letting them do what they do best.

I believe the OJ Trial is a master class of Defense Tactics and legal maneuvering. That wasn't due to Racial Bias. But brilliant Lawyers.

 

[Paradoxical]

I didn't say that. I said the Defense did a fantastic job. And they did. Even the DNA evidence was tainted by Furhman's perjury and subsequent pleading the fifth. That and the DNA expert after claiming the odds of a false positive were something one in five million, had no answer when the Defense pointed out that statistically there were about ten people in the Los Angeles Basin that would match.

Reasonable doubt. It's a thing. A thing that Trump couldn't manage to pull off in his trial largely because he wanted to micromanage his defense team instead of hiring the best, paying them on time and well, and then letting them do what they do best.

I believe the OJ Trial is a master class of Defense Tactics and legal maneuvering. That wasn't due to Racial Bias. But brilliant Lawyers.

Clarence Darrow couldn't have gotten a guilty verdict with that racist jury.

 

[SavannahMann]

Clarence Darrow couldn't have gotten a guilty verdict with that racist jury.

Just goes to show you have no clue what actually happened. Of course the most clueless are usually the loudest and most opinionated.

First the Defense got a huge victory in Jury Selection. They managed to exclude anyone who read a newspaper or watched the news more than once or twice a week. So you had a jury of people who were uninterested in what was going on to start with. That doesn’t make them racist. It makes them apathetic.

So next the prosecution got to put forth their case and again the defense was brilliant. They challenged everything and everyone.

Then after Furhman got caught lying and pleaded the fifth the case rested on DNA.

Now Marsha Clark really screwed up. She literally spent the entire day going over the minutia of DNA testing. The Jury had glazed eyes after an hour. She got bogged down in the details and the jury was bored and confused before lunch. This group needed simple and they didn’t get it. They got the graduate course instead.

Then the Defense goes for cross examination and hits with the statistics. Not going to the science but pointing out how one in five million still meant ten probable matches just in the LA Basin.

Finally the Prosecution goes with the Hail Mary. The gloves. And they don’t fit.

Now OJ lost the civil case because that went by preponderance of evidence. He won the criminal because the legal team managed to create a reasonable doubt.

All the prosecution testimony was challenged. All the evidence was attacked.

The best defense attorneys from across the nation were on that case. Between them there was not a single trick they were going to miss.

 

[ncguy]

They need to clean house in the FBI. 12 years of DEI hires brought us guys like him. Comey, McCabe, Weissmann, Strzok, Lisa Page, Thibault. They need to shed about 5,000 of those deep staters.

Dei hires lol
Rw talking point blather

 

[Paradoxical]

Just goes to show you have no clue what actually happened. Of course the most clueless are usually the loudest and most opinionated.

First the Defense got a huge victory in Jury Selection. They managed to exclude anyone who read a newspaper or watched the news more than once or twice a week. So you had a jury of people who were uninterested in what was going on to start with. That doesn’t make them racist. It makes them apathetic.

So next the prosecution got to put forth their case and again the defense was brilliant. They challenged everything and everyone.

Then after Furhman got caught lying and pleaded the fifth the case rested on DNA.

Now Marsha Clark really screwed up. She literally spent the entire day going over the minutia of DNA testing. The Jury had glazed eyes after an hour. She got bogged down in the details and the jury was bored and confused before lunch. This group needed simple and they didn’t get it. They got the graduate course instead.

Then the Defense goes for cross examination and hits with the statistics. Not going to the science but pointing out how one in five million still meant ten probable matches just in the LA Basin.

Finally the Prosecution goes with the Hail Mary. The gloves. And they don’t fit.

Now OJ lost the civil case because that went by preponderance of evidence. He won the criminal because the legal team managed to create a reasonable doubt.

All the prosecution testimony was challenged. All the evidence was attacked.

The best defense attorneys from across the nation were on that case. Between them there was not a single trick they were going to miss.

Post in thread '‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat'

Thursday at 9:14 AM

Make up your mind.
Was OJ let off because the black jury hates white people?
Or was it because they believe lies?

You should know the answer, but too many refuse to admit the truth. OJ was a hero of the black race. He was a star football player, a movie star, handsome, well liked. He ruthlessly killed two people, almost chopping their heads off in a fit of jealous rage. Anyone with half a brain knows this. With his massive wealth, he got a slick attorney named Johnny Cochran and the judge allowed him to essentially run the trial so he, (the judge) would not be accused of racial...

• Paradoxical

 

[SavannahMann]

Post in thread '‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat'

Thursday at 9:14 AM

Make up your mind.
Was OJ let off because the black jury hates white people?
Or was it because they believe lies?

You should know the answer, but too many refuse to admit the truth. OJ was a hero of the black race. He was a star football player, a movie star, handsome, well liked. He ruthlessly killed two people, almost chopping their heads off in a fit of jealous rage. Anyone with half a brain knows this. With his massive wealth, he got a slick attorney named Johnny Cochran and the judge allowed him to essentially run the trial so he, (the judge) would not be accused of racial...

• Paradoxical

Why don't you want to discuss the facts of the trial? There are probably a hundred videos showing the moments I spoke of online. There are transcripts.

I said it before. Many times. I want this sort of defense for every defendant. The Founders wanted it to be hard to convict someone. John Adams, one of the Founders. defended the Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. He fought hard for their acquittal. He won their acquittal on the murder charges by the way.

Now, we have an example of the "It's totally racist" defense. It wasn't the OJ Trial. It was right here in my own state of Georgia. It was about an hour south of where I am. Brunswick Georgia. The McMichaels were tried for gunning down a black man in the street. Their Defense Attorney kept complaining about the number of Black People in the Gallery. The Defense didn't work. All of the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to the only punishment available. Life. The older defendants got with the possibility of parole. That means after serving twenty years they could apply for parole. It doesn't mean they'll get it. The younger idiot got life without the possibility of Parole. He will spend the rest of his days in a Georgia State Prison.

We also had allegations of a Racist Conviction with Chauvin. But again, the only way you could believe this is if you utterly ignored the law and the facts.

The OJ Trial touched upon Racism briefly to set up Furhman with the recording they had. They did that to discredit Furhman, and to bring doubt upon the evidence. Otherwise race didn't come into it. But I see your conundrum. With the lead Defense attorney being Johnny Cochran, a Black Man, you can't deal with the idea that a Black Man was a smart attorney and beat all those White Folks who were pushing for the Prosecution.

 

[Paradoxical]

Why don't you want to discuss the facts of the trial? There are probably a hundred videos showing the moments I spoke of online. There are transcripts.

I said it before. Many times. I want this sort of defense for every defendant. The Founders wanted it to be hard to convict someone. John Adams, one of the Founders. defended the Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. He fought hard for their acquittal. He won their acquittal on the murder charges by the way.

Now, we have an example of the "It's totally racist" defense. It wasn't the OJ Trial. It was right here in my own state of Georgia. It was about an hour south of where I am. Brunswick Georgia. The McMichaels were tried for gunning down a black man in the street. Their Defense Attorney kept complaining about the number of Black People in the Gallery. The Defense didn't work. All of the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to the only punishment available. Life. The older defendants got with the possibility of parole. That means after serving twenty years they could apply for parole. It doesn't mean they'll get it. The younger idiot got life without the possibility of Parole. He will spend the rest of his days in a Georgia State Prison.

We also had allegations of a Racist Conviction with Chauvin. But again, the only way you could believe this is if you utterly ignored the law and the facts.

The OJ Trial touched upon Racism briefly to set up Furhman with the recording they had. They did that to discredit Furhman, and to bring doubt upon the evidence. Otherwise race didn't come into it. But I see your conundrum. With the lead Defense attorney being Johnny Cochran, a Black Man, you can't deal with the idea that a Black Man was a smart attorney and beat all those White Folks who were pushing for the Prosecution.

It was jury nullification and the search for black racists.

 

[SavannahMann]

It was jury nullification and the search for black racists.

Right. So why was Furhman charged with Perjury again? Refresh my memory and make it fit into your narrative. I know. Like all RW types you refuse to deal in facts when you can scream it's unfair.