Chaffetz(R):House Oversight Committee Won't Investigate Trump Voter Fraud Claim

[Dos Equis]

Of course I did.
It's almost like that question is meant to be argumentative or something.  
Yeah, it doesn't matter that he didn't tell the truth, but you also just posted that it's a good thing he was fired for it. Um, ok.  


Except I have made at least 5 posts about this very topic in the last 24 hours.  

You watched the Sessions clip and read the questionnaire and are unable to see the context of the questions and answer.  That's too bad.  Partisanship interfering with your objectivity. 

No my question was just a question. 

YOU are the one who brought up Flynn, again.  I could care less why he didn't tell truth.  That's something important to you, not me. 

I have not seen your posts.  Did you create thread about it like you did with Flynn?  Were your posts expressing concern about government spying on private citizens and the outrageousness of the leak by someone in the intelligence community to the media assuredly for partisan purposes? 

[Yamcha]

I'm starting to get confused guys.

[Nick Danger]

I'm starting to get confused guys.

Why?

[Al Doggity]

You watched the Sessions clip and read the questionnaire and are unable to see the context of the questions and answer.  That's too bad.  Partisanship interfering with your objectivity. 

No my question was just a question. 

... that you invented an answer to which had no relation to anything I had posted previously or the answer that I had just given you.  

YOU are the one who brought up Flynn, again.  I could care less why he didn't tell truth.  That's something important to you, not me. 

Yet you are the one who said it's good that he was fired for lying... despite the fact that it's unimportant that he lied and no one should really care. That seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you can pull out a made up definition for contradictory that has no relation to the one everyone else uses that will explain why it isn't.

I have not seen your posts.  Did you create thread about it like you did with Flynn?  Were your posts expressing concern about government spying on private citizens and the outrageousness of the leak by someone in the intelligence community to the media assuredly for partisan purposes? 

Yet, once again, you are more than capable of reading my mind and telling me how I'd react in a different situation, yet somehow you can't even hazard a guess as to why Sessions and Flynn lied.  And once again, when it's convenient, you manage to lose the ability to do something as rudimentary as look at a post that is less than 24 hours old.

[Al Doggity]

I'm starting to get confused guys.

Okay, I guess we're supposed to believe she's lying... but why didn't he give one example?


I haven't heard or read of any news organization saying that.

[Dos Equis]

... that you invented an answer to which had no relation to anything I had posted previously or the answer that I had just given you.  
Yet you are the one who said it's good that he was fired for lying... despite the fact that it's unimportant that he lied and no one should really care. That seems contradictory to me, but I'm sure you can pull out a made up definition for contradictory that has no relation to the one everyone else uses that will explain why it isn't.
Yet, once again, you are more than capable of reading my mind and telling me how I'd react in a different situation, yet somehow you can't even hazard a guess as to why Sessions and Flynn lied.  And once again, when it's convenient, you manage to lose the ability to do something as rudimentary as look at a post that is less than 24 hours old.

I asked a question, but I see that you don't understand the difference between and question, a statement, and an argument. 

LOL.  The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter. 

As I've said repeatedly on this board, I don't read every thread or every post in every thread.  If you want to point me to whatever you posted I'll be happy to read it. 

[Al Doggity]

I asked a question, but I see that you don't understand the difference between and question, a statement, and an argument.  

Oh, feel free to make up a new definition that will suit you. Don't forget to try to twist something I've already said completely around while you're doing it.

LOL.  The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter.  

How are concurrent house probes not related to each other?  The article mentions seedy Russian ties multiple times.

As I've said repeatedly on this board, I don't read every thread or every post in every thread.  If you want to point me to whatever you posted I'll be happy to read it.  

No one expects anyone to read every thread, but in that one post you hit all the notes I frequently criticize you for: willful ignorance, making up false positions for others, the pretense of lacking the ability to interpret information like a human being. You can happily and easily find the posts yourself. If you choose not to, it is of no concern to me , but it does reinforce what I've said about you multiple times.  

[Dos Equis]

Oh, feel free to make up a new definition that will suit you. Don't forget to try to twist something I've already said completely around while you're doing it.

  How are concurrent house probes not related to each other?  The article mentions seedy Russian ties multiple times.


No one expects anyone to read every thread, but in that one post you hit all the notes I frequently criticize you for: willful ignorance, making up false positions for others, the pretense of lacking the ability to interpret information like a human being. You can happily and easily find the posts yourself. If you choose not to, it is of no concern to me , but it does reinforce what I've said about you multiple times.  

I just looked at the article again.  I didn't see any reference to "seedy Russian ties multiple times."  Are talking about the same article at the start of this thread?

No, I'm going to search through your post history.  I don't a give rip. 

[Al Doggity]

I just looked at the article again.  I didn't see any reference to "seedy Russian ties multiple times."  Are talking about the same article at the start of this thread?

Right from the article:
Chaffetz said he has spoken with House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who on Sunday released a statement saying his panel would make inquiries into whether Obama illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.

Doubts were raised over the committee's credibility after reports surfaced that Nunes, a Republican lawmaker, had made calls to reporters in order to challenge stories about Russia at the request of the White House.

No, I'm going to search through your post history.  I don't a give rip.  

Yes, it would be hard to imagine you doing so. It would also be hard to imagine you clicking on the most obvious of the 12 threads that have been active today. Quite frankly, considering you have declined to verify information from links you've posted YOURSELF and you just pretended you didn't see any mentions of Russia in the story posted in the opening post, I have a feeling you would find an excuse not to click/read/understand even if I did hotlink right to my comments.

[Dos Equis]

Right from the article:
Chaffetz said he has spoken with House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who on Sunday released a statement saying his panel would make inquiries into whether Obama illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign as part of an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.

Doubts were raised over the committee's credibility after reports surfaced that Nunes, a Republican lawmaker, had made calls to reporters in order to challenge stories about Russia at the request of the White House.


Yes, it would be hard to imagine you doing so. It would also be hard to imagine you clicking on the most obvious of the 12 threads that have been active today. Quite frankly, considering you have declined to verify information from links you've posted YOURSELF and you just pretended you didn't see any mentions of Russia in the story posted in the opening post, I have a feeling you would find an excuse not to click/read/understand even if I did hotlink right to my comments.

Are you friggin kidding me?  Those are not multiple references to "seedy ties to Russia."     Your reading comprehension really sucks. 

No, I'm still not going to search your post history.  I'm sorrynotsorry that it's so important to you.   

[Al Doggity]

Are you friggin kidding me?  Those are not multiple references to "seedy ties to Russia."    Your reading comprehension really sucks.  

Multiple references: check
About investigation into the administration's ties to russia during campaign: check
 
... but somehow, they aren't multiple references into russian ties.    OK. I guess they were being sarcastic.

No, I'm still not going to search your post history.  I'm sorrynotsorry that it's so important to you.  

Why would you looking at my post history be important to me? You are the one said, "i'd happily read something that is super easy to find if you point me to it", and I declined to do so based on your history. How does any of that translate to you looking at my old posts being important to me?

[Dos Equis]

Multiple references: check
About investigation into the administration's ties to russia during campaign: check
 
... but somehow, they aren't multiple references into russian ties.    OK. I guess they were being sarcastic.
Why would you looking at my post history be important to me? You are the one said, "i'd happily read something that is super easy to find if you point me to it", and I declined to do so based on your history. How does any of that translate to you looking at my old posts being important to me?

A reference to Russian "interference in the election" is not a reference to "seedy ties to Russia."  That's retarded.   

Once again, this is something you brought up.  You mentioned your multiple posts about the government spying on Flynn and the release of that information to the media.  I was just trying to be polite by offering to read them.  Doesn't matter to me.   

[Yamcha]

You assholes gave me hell for calling the PissGate dossier "Fake" instead of "Unsubstantiated"

But now Russian "interference in election" = "Seedy Russian Ties"?

[Al Doggity]

A reference to Russian "interference in the election" is not a reference to "seedy ties to Russia."  That's retarded.   

Of course. Nowhere in that quote did they use the phrase "seedy ties to Russia", so it's obviously mocking without being sarcastic, but not really, even though it's exactly that but the nuance is probably lost on you.

Once again, this is something you brought up.  You mentioned your multiple posts about the government spying on Flynn and the release of that information to the media.  I was just trying to be polite by offering to read them.  Doesn't matter to me.   

No.  YOU said this:
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press.  But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.    
And then I said, I've addressed this multiple times within the past 24 hours. If you choose not to look at extremely easy to find posts, it makes no difference to me. Considering you are currently trying to make the argument that multiple references to ties with Russia actually are something other than that, obviously it's not something that would be important to me.

[Al Doggity]

You assholes gave me hell for calling the PissGate dossier "Fake" instead of "Unsubstantiated"

But now Russian "interference in election" = "Seedy Russian Ties"?

Are you joking? Your last post in this thread was this video:

[Al Doggity]

LOL.  The only comments I made about Flynn were in response to your question, which had nothing to do with the subject matter. 

 

oh, and let's back this up a little. The only reason I brought up Flynn because this was your first contribution to the thread:

You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?

[Yamcha]

Are you joking? Your last post in this thread was this video:

 PRESS RELEASES   02.02.17

Statement on Trump Lifting Sanctions on Putin’s Intelligence Thugs
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after President Trump lifted sanctions on the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service and successor to the KGB:

“U.S. intelligence agencies have thoroughly detailed the Russian security services’ brazen assault on American democracy in support of candidate Donald Trump.  Less than two weeks after walking into the White House, President Trump lifts sanctions on the Russian Security Service.  Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present.

[Dos Equis]

Of course. Nowhere in that quote did they use the phrase "seedy ties to Russia", so it's obviously mocking without being sarcastic, but not really, even though it's exactly that but the nuance is probably lost on you.

No.  YOU said this:
And notice how you have expressed no interest in the fact that Flynn's conversation was recorded and that someone leaked that recording to the press.  But put a "D" behind his name and you people would be all over it.    
And then I said, I've addressed this multiple times within the past 24 hours. If you choose not to look at extremely easy to find posts, it makes no difference to me. Considering you are currently trying to make the argument that multiple references to ties with Russia actually are something other than that, obviously it's not something that would be important to me.

Only a hack would see a comment to "Russian interference" as Trump's "seedy ties to Russia. 

You are the one who brought up Flynn. 

[Dos Equis]

oh, and let's back this up a little. The only reason I brought up Flynn because this was your first contribution to the thread:

You mean like all you liberals (from message board folks to members of Congress) accusing Trump of conspiring with the Russian government to sway the election in his favor?

Ok?  And?  I didn't say anything about Flynn.

[Al Doggity]

PRESS RELEASES   02.02.17

Statement on Trump Lifting Sanctions on Putin’s Intelligence Thugs
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after President Trump lifted sanctions on the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service and successor to the KGB:

“U.S. intelligence agencies have thoroughly detailed the Russian security services’ brazen assault on American democracy in support of candidate Donald Trump.  Less than two weeks after walking into the White House, President Trump lifts sanctions on the Russian Security Service.  Vladimir Putin’s thugs meddle with an American election, and President Trump gives them a thank you present.

This is a PRESS RELEASE from Nancy Pelosi. And it criticizes Trump's behavior AFTER he took over the White House, in spite of what even his team acknowledged about the election.

[Al Doggity]

Ok?  And?  I didn't say anything about Flynn.

Flynn lied about his seedy ties to Russia. That was definitely related to the point you brought up.

[Dos Equis]

Flynn lied about his seedy ties to Russia. That was definitely related to the point you brought up.

I asked this earlier, but can you explain precisely what "seedy ties to Russia" means and who it involves? 

[Al Doggity]

I asked this earlier, but can you explain precisely what "seedy ties to Russia" means and who it involves? 

Seedy ties are ties that appear to be illicit in nature. This may be manifested in various ways, from lying under oath at a congressional hearing to refusing to release tax returns to appearing to have knowledge of illegal hacks ahead of the general public.  These seedy ties seem to  involve multiple members of the Trump administration and have resulted in bipartisan calls for probes to determine their extent. 

[Straw Man]

What do you mean by "so-called president"?

settle down

It's just the same as Trump referring to Federal judges as "so called" judges

Trump is setting the standards now so that kind of reference is totally acceptable

[Dos Equis]

Seedy ties are ties that appear to be illicit in nature. This may be manifested in various ways, from lying under oath at a congressional hearing to refusing to release tax returns to appearing to have knowledge of illegal hacks ahead of the general public.  These seedy ties seem to  involve multiple members of the Trump administration and have resulted in bipartisan calls for probes to determine their extent. 

Thanks.  So you have identified the following:

1.  Lying under oath at a Congressional hearing, which I assume refers to Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador.

2.  Trump refusing to release his tax returns. 

3.  Trump appearing to have knowledge of illegal unspecified hacks, which I assume refers to the WikiLeaks release of Podesta's emails. 

Anything else?