Reply With Quote
Nonsensical "insurance" conspiracy theory with no further explanation incoming.
this still makes no sense. if they knew clinton was going to be elected, why bother with efforts to stop trump?Second, pollsters and the media were convinced that Hillary Clinton would be elected. As a result, members of the FBI, CIA, and other federal bureaucracies apparently assumed that any extralegal efforts to stop the common menace Trump would be appreciated rather than punished by a soon-to-be President Clinton.
now, if they released damaging information prior to the election, then the theory could have legs.
saying they took efforts to stop somebody that they were already certain was going to lose is like sending 2 guys to close out on shaq at the 3 point line
Nonsensical "insurance" conspiracy theory with no further explanation incoming.
They didnt ¨knew¨ it wasnt a 100% sure thing, they thought Hillary would win thats why Trump Tower was wiretapped, even if there was nothing they could build something around it aka collusion.
And media tried to make him look like a clown, rapist, racist, etc.
wiretapped? for real?
That whole article is speculation and false equivalence. The idiots who keep comparing LOLspygate to Watergate do so without making any specific comparisons. Example:
Name one instance where the liberal establishment exercised the same tactic as Nixon's Watergate goons. One.They held the reins of federal power under the Obama Administration. And they chose to exercise it in a fashion similar to how Nixon’s team had in 1972.
Tying up loose ends doesn't make sense to you? Glad you're not a CO.
What are the "loose ends" here, Chris?
For real, have anything to discuss? or you just make those kind of dumb comments to discredit?
I see, when liberals lie if you dont buy it you are a conspiracy clown.
He usually just says tick tock. Rarely has anything to say unless it's negative.
I'd like to discuss the wiretapping.
Who are you saying wiretapped whom?
whats the point of wiretapping somebody they knew was going to lose?
or if the theory is they WEREN'T sure he was going to lose, why would they go through the hassle of wiretapping him and then NOT releasing that info... allowing him to win the election
it doesn't make sense
if their goal was to make sure trump lost, they would have let the information out before the election to damage his chances. sitting on the info until after he is elected makes no sense if this was their diabolical plan
Maybe you should read a little more, and spend less time in ST you know use a couple tabs in the web browser, unless you are using Netscape Navigator.
THEY WERE DOING IT AS INSURANCE THEY WOULDN'T USE LATER EITHER!whats the point of wiretapping somebody they knew was going to lose?
or if the theory is they WEREN'T sure he was going to lose, why would they go through the hassle of wiretapping him and then NOT releasing that info... allowing him to win the election
So you don't really want to discuss wiretapping after all.
lol
It wasnt a sure thing, polls were fake made by liberal media to inflate Hilda, who the thinks she had 92% chances of winning?whats the point of wiretapping somebody they knew was going to lose?
or if the theory is they WEREN'T sure he was going to lose, why would they go through the hassle of wiretapping him and then NOT releasing that info... allowing him to win the election
Because they had nothing to show, also you cant do that thats Watergate 2.0.
Thats why its called the swamp.
so then why did they just sit on everything until after the election
Why should I discuss wiretapping with you if you dont know nothing about the issue?
You just want to dismiss banalize and do some damage control
I know some things about the issue, but I'm asking you the particulars of the wiretapping you are talking about.
Who did the wiretapping and whom was wiretapped?
Because they have nothing, just complains, nothing changed since the election liberals cry he is racist, rapist, hurtz filings, womanizer.so then why did they just sit on everything until after the election
When I say Watergate 2.0 I mean you cant spy the opposition, thats the crime.
What do they have now? so far they have a loser former porn star and 13 Russians that posted pro Trump on Facebook.
This was the insurance policy that Page and Strzok were alluding to in the texts. Cmon son.it doesn't make sense
if their goal was to make sure trump lost, they would have let the information out before the election to damage his chances. sitting on the info until after he is elected makes no sense if this was their diabolical plan
Comey violated FBI's own rulebook by using Trump campaign 'spy': Expert
Bureau's rulebook encourages alternatives to human spies in any investigation
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-be-used-spy-/The FBI’s own guidelines restrict the deployment of informants to spy on Americans, such as the bureau’s decision to plant a human source among Donald Trump’s presidential campaign aides.
The cautionary regulation is contained in the FBI’s nearly 700-page Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. The restrictions are prompting national security analysts to say the FBI should have heeded its own rulebook, which encourages alternatives to human spies in any investigation, much less one into a presidential political campaign.
So you know some things, but you dont now who and whom? please, its getting old.
mike walked right into that.
The policy consisting of the stuff they never used?
How is that insurance?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
