Comey says new information that Hillary Clinton drummed up Russia controversy to vilify Trump 'doesn't ring a bell' | Fox News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  4 weeks ago  •  93 comments

By:   Brooke Singman (Fox News)

Comey says new information that Hillary Clinton drummed up Russia controversy to vilify Trump 'doesn't ring a bell' | Fox News
Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday said it didn't "ring a bell" when asked whether he received an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving "a plan" attempting to tie President Trump to Russia and distract from her email scandal before the 2016 election.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday said it didn't "ring a bell" when asked whether he received an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving "a plan" attempting to tie President Donald Trump to Russia and distract from her email scandal before the 2016 election.

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Comey about the newly declassified information released Tuesday by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BRIEFED ON CLAIMS HILLARY CLINTON DRUMMED UP RUSSIA CONTROVERSY TO VILIFY TRUMP, DISTRACT FROM EMAILS

According to the declassified information, in September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral on Clinton purportedly approving "a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections" in order to distract the public from her email scandal. That referral was sent to Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.

"You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community? Sept. 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to James Comey and Strzok regarding Clinton's approval of a plan [about] Trump…as a means of distraction?" Graham asked Comey Wednesday.

"That doesn't ring any bells with me," Comey replied.

"That's a pretty stunning thing that it doesn't ring a bell," Graham fired back. "You get this inquiry from the intelligence community to look at the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge."

Graham questioned "how far-fetched is that," citing the fact that Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.

The dossier contains claims about alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

"A bunch of crap to be used against an American citizen," Graham said. "You don't recall this?"

Comey replied: "It doesn't sound familiar."

Asked later, by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the matter, Comey said: "I don't know what the director is doing."

Graham's line of questioning came after Ratcliffe informed the committee Tuesday that the Obama administration obtained Russian intelligence in July 2016 with allegations against Clinton, but cautioned that the intelligence community "does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the text to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."

Ratcliffe, in the letter sent to the committee, did not offer specifics on the intelligence, but did reveal that former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes show that he briefed former President Obama on the information.

According to Ratcliffe's letter, the intelligence included the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."

SOURCE OF STEELE DOSSIER WAS INVESTIGATED BY FBI FOR RUSSIAN CONTACTS

Nick Merrill, Clinton's spokesperson, called the allegations "baseless b———t."

"This is Russian disinformation," tweeted Rachel Cohen, spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., adding that it was "laundered by the Director Of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"This is extraordinary," she tweeted.

But Ratcliffe, in a statement released after the information was made public, pushed back on the idea he was advancing "Russian disinformation."

"To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community," Ratcliffe said in a statement to Fox News. "I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days."

Graham, of South Carolina, said he would review the information, noting that Ratcliffe would make it available in a classified setting.

"This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia," Graham said.

The new information will likely add to criticisms from Republicans and those close to the president about the Russia investigation.

Attorney General Barr last year appointed U.S. Attorney of Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI's Russia probe shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller completed his years-long investigation into whether the campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It is unclear whether this information will be considered part of Durham's investigation.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Texan1211
1  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Comey: Nothing to see here, folks, I don't even recall ever hearing anything about this!

NO, folks, NOT AN ACTUAL QUOTE.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 weeks ago

I would not trust Comey to walk my dog!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    4 weeks ago
I would not trust Comey to walk my dog!

That shows a degree of sanity I fear is lacking in those who do trust him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 weeks ago

 The man has been struck dumb by the pesky truth!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

Last I heard, your abuela Hillary isn't running for President.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2    4 weeks ago

Oh, she never intended to be MY Abuela, that was aimed at the Hispanics she was pandering to, but it is encouraging that you know she isn't running this election!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Comey appears to have early onset dementia. Can’t remember anything he did just a few years ago.  Sad to hear.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 weeks ago

Must be a rare form of it, as he vividly remembers other stuff that happened around the same time or earlier.

Pretty selective!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 weeks ago
Can’t remember anything he did just a few years ago.

At least his dementia appears to be not as bad as Trumps who couldn't remember what he did just weeks before when he told the Mueller investigators "I do not recall" 37 times...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2    4 weeks ago
At least his dementia appears to be not as bad as Trumps who couldn't remember what he did just weeks before when he told the Mueller investigators "I do not recall" 37 times...

Wow, nice deflection!!

th?id=OIP.keF19CKbHARTDGgkuHJ_VAHaEa&w=259&h=160&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.25&pid=3.1&rm=2

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 weeks ago

Reminds me of George H W Bush during the Iran Contra hearings, "I have no clear recollection of those events.".jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
4  JBB    4 weeks ago

No wonder the damn gop is losing so badly. They are still rerunning the last election against the wrong candidates. Biden is not Clinton and this isn't 2016.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago

They're so desperate.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    4 weeks ago
They're so desperate.  

Stay on topic, please.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

So the real topic is here is republican deflection to ..... But Hillary!!!!

The deflection is from:

  • Covid Deaths because of Trump
  • Losing in the presidential and congressional races.
  • The tanked economy.

How many times was Benghazi reviewed by republicans with nothing to show for it?  This is the same shit, different day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

Stay on topic, please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.3    4 weeks ago
How many times was Benghazi reviewed by republicans with nothing to show for it? 

Benghazi?

Really?

Sad to see what passes as "on topic" in THAT comment.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

It was a real event. 

Unlike the piece of shit Steele Dossier, which was completely fake. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago
No wonder the damn gop is losing so badly. They are still rerunning the last election against the wrong candidates. Biden is not Clinton and this isn't 2016.

This isn't about the election. It is about corrupt FBI leaders doing favors for the Democrats.

Stay on topic, please.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    4 weeks ago

What favor did Comey do for Hillary?

Pretty desperate to think he did.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
What favor did Comey do for Hillary?

Well, let's just think about that for a minute.

Hmmm....Comey gets a referral involving two candidates for President............and does absolutely nothing?

Ha!

Pretty desperate to think he did.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

Pretty desperate.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

Downright ignorant.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

Downright desperate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
What favor did Comey do for Hillary?

Anything imaginable just so he wouldn't commit suicide by gunshot to the back of his head.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Amazing and completely unbelievable that Comey could receive a referral about this matter and not even recall it AT ALL.

Does that really sound plausible to anyone with a brain, especially on WHO the referral was for and the circumstances it was for?

I call bullshit on that, Comey.

You may fool some lemmings with that crap, but not anyone with a brain.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5    4 weeks ago
Amazing and completely unbelievable that Comey could receive a referral about this matter and not even recall it AT ALL.

Well gee Tex, if Graham wanted to help Comey recollect the referral that Ratcliffe claims exists, all he had to do was enter a copy of the fucking thing into the record, hand a copy to Comey and THEN ask him about it. 

Yet that didn't happen since it's pretty clear that neither Ratcliffe or Graham have any documentation that a fucking referral was made. 

Does that really sound plausible to anyone with a brain, especially on WHO the referral was for and the circumstances it was for?

You mean the 'alleged' referral from an anonymous person right Tex? 

I call bullshit on that, Comey.

I call bullshit on your seed Tex. 

You may fool some lemmings with that crap, but not anyone with a brain.

You may be able to gaslight some of the Trump sycophants with the crap in this seed but NOT anyone with a brain. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1    4 weeks ago
I call bullshit on your seed Tex. 

I promise I won't force you to stay here then.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

No worries Tex. I'll stay voluntarily. 

So let's see some proof of this referral Tex? Got a link to a copy of it? Know who made the referral? Date? Anything at all? 

Oh and by the fucking way, this is what you're decrying:

the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge.

If you insist THAT should be investigated by the FBI, what say you about the Trump campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Biden and his son of corruption in Ukraine? 

I await your outrage.../s

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Sometimes it just pays to actually read the article before posting.

This is one of those times.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

I already did. I think this is the best part:

Graham's line of questioning came after Ratcliffe informed the committee Tuesday that the Obama administration obtained Russian intelligence in July 2016 with allegations against Clinton, but cautioned that the intelligence community "does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the text to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."

In short, Ratcliffe has NOTHING. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

Right. I'm sure you will keep right on thinking that, too, no matter what.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    4 weeks ago

I don't 'think' it Tex, I KNOW it based on the quote I posted AND the fact that you haven't been capable of supporting the allegations in your seed with even one iota of evidence, even though you've had a day to do so. 

Either you're unable to find any evidence or you haven't bothered to do so.

That alone tells me that YOU will keep right on acquiescing to the gaslighting in your seed, no matter what. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dulay @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

Gaslighting = deflection.

A popular republican tactic in the Trump era.....'caus they got no game!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
I don't 'think' it Tex, I KNOW it

Lots of people insist they know things which simply aren't true.

This certainly qualifies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.7    4 weeks ago

Stay on topic please.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    4 weeks ago
Lots of people insist they know things which simply aren't true.

I'm just talking about what YOU think YOU know and based on your inability to support your claim or the allegations in your seed I know that it's all unfounded. 

This certainly qualifies.

You've had every opportunity to supply evidence but instead you've deflected. 

Again, based on your seed, which is the ONLY information on the table, there is NO evidence of anything you our your seed alleges. 

I'd love to see some ACTUAL, real proof for your scurrilous claim.

You don't happen to actually HAVE any, do you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.10    4 weeks ago

It is in the article, read it or not, I don't care. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.11    4 weeks ago
It is in the article,

Your seed is just allegation and innuendo. There isn't one iota of empirical evidence. 

read it or not,

Again, I READ the article. I asked you to support your claims and the allegations in your seed and you failed. I'm still more than willing to read that evidence but I tire of your obtuse deflection.

I don't care. 

Now THAT'S obvious and begs the question: Why post a seed that you have no interest in discussing or supporting? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.12    4 weeks ago
Your seed is just allegation and innuendo. There isn't one iota of empirical evidence.

So you say, so you say.

Again, I READ the article.

I note you claim that.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.13    4 weeks ago

I will not be RSVPing to the circle jerk. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.16  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    4 weeks ago
I will not be RSVPing to the circle jerk. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Suz
5.1.17  Suz  replied to  Dulay @5.1.10    4 weeks ago

Your opinion has become harassment.

You've disagreed by attacking Texan numerous times so please wrap it up.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.18  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Suz @5.1.17    4 weeks ago
Your opinion has become harassment. You've disagreed by attacking Texan numerous times so please wrap it up.   

I look at it this way:

When one is reduced to personal attacks, it usually correlates to how weak the argument is.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Suz @5.1.17    4 weeks ago
Your opinion has become harassment.

Really Suz? Did you notice that Texan is the seeder of this article? Do you know that the seeder can flag a comment as off topic? 

As for 'harassment', note that ALL of my comments are still posted. Which either means they were not flagged as 'harassment' or that the moderators don't think it's 'harassment'. 

You've a right to your opinion, for what it's worth...

You've disagreed by attacking Texan numerous times so please wrap it up.   

Again, It may behoove you to review the fucking CoC around here.

If you think my comment is an attack, flag the fucking thing but keep you admonitions to yourself. 

Cheers. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.18    4 weeks ago
I look at it this way: When one is reduced to personal attacks, it usually correlates to how weak the argument is.

Did you flag my comment Texan?

If not, WHY are you whining about it?

If so, the mods don't agree with you. 

Cry me a river. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.20    4 weeks ago
Did you flag my comment Texan?

Weak arguments don't warrant flagging. Thought you understood the C of C better than that. My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed you knew it.

 
 
 
Suz
5.1.22  Suz  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.18    4 weeks ago
When one is reduced to personal attacks, it usually correlates to how weak the argument is.

If you allow it to continue then that is your choice, but it doesn't make for good conversation and/or debate. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.23  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Suz @5.1.22    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.21    4 weeks ago
Weak arguments don't warrant flagging. Thought you understood the C of C better than that. My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed you knew it.

So now it's a 'weak argument' not a 'personal attack"? Got ya. 

Either way, STOP whining about a comment you didn't flag. THAT'S in the CoC you pretend to understand. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.25  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.24    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Suz
5.1.26  Suz  replied to  Dulay @5.1.19    4 weeks ago
You've a right to your opinion, for what it's worth...

As do we all and it is Texan's opinion this article is worth posting.  All I want you to do is to stop trying to control others.

As for 'harassment', note that ALL of my comments are still posted. Which either means they were not flagged as 'harassment' or that the moderators don't think it's 'harassment'. 

Would you prefer I use the word, trolling?  

If you think my comment is an attack, flag the fucking thing but keep you admonitions to yourself. 

What would be the "fucking" point.   When you stop so will I. 

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.27  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.23    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Suz @5.1.26    4 weeks ago
As do we all and it is Texan's opinion this article is worth posting.  All I want you to do is to stop trying to control others.

Oh please DO tell me how I am trying to control others. How about you block quote my 'controlling' comments. THIS I gotta see...

Oh BTFW, doesn't your comment imply that YOU trying to control ME?

Would you prefer I use the word, trolling? 

Not being one to try and control others, I suggest you use whatever fucking word you want.

Note that it doesn't matter since trolling is also a reason to flag a comment while refraining from trying to moderate a member yourself. READ the CoC. 

What would be the "fucking" point.  

The fucking point would be to follow the CoC that you agreed to as a member. 

When you stop so will I. 

I could NOT care less whether you stop or not. 

Now, IMHO, this has become META and though I'm not trying to keep you from posting more whinny comments here, I suggest you take this there...

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

"You may fool some lemmings with that crap, but not anyone with a brain."

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1  MAGA  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  MAGA @6.1    4 weeks ago

Nope, you've got that backwards, as usual.  Comey didn't do any democrats, much less Hillary, any favors whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    4 weeks ago
Nope, you've got that backwards, as usual.  Comey didn't do any democrats, much less Hillary, any favors whatsoever.  

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

That's so profound!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    4 weeks ago
That's so profound!

No, not really.

Just a little common sense.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    4 weeks ago

I see no evidence of that either.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.5    4 weeks ago
I see no evidence of that either.  

Shocking.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.7    4 weeks ago

Last warning, Stay on topic or leave.

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.9  MAGA  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

What exactly in my perfectly accurate and true statement did you not understand?  

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.10  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

That’s for darn sure!  

 
 
 
Suz
6.1.11  Suz  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

And, you know this how?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Suz @6.1.11    4 weeks ago
And, you know this how?

jrSmiley_74_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

Lol ...... "doesn't ring a bell?"

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sparty On @7    4 weeks ago

No wonder Hillary lost...what with all that incompetent help

 
 
 
Texan1211
8  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

How can anyone believe Comey after that fiasco?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8    4 weeks ago

How can anyone give any credibility to your seeds after this fiasco? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.1    4 weeks ago

Stay on topic or leave.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
8.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @8    4 weeks ago
How can anyone believe Comey after that fiasco?

No surprise that those who believe Comey also think Biden is the better choice to run the country.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
9  Split Personality    4 weeks ago

Tempest in a teapot?

Bill Barr has been accused of a lot of favoritism towards Mr Trump.

and yet the DOJ sits on lots of referrals, many of which are produced by Devin Nunez and simply, apparently ignored.

Current referrals

James Comey

HRC

Rod Rosenstein

Andrew McCabe

Glenn Simpson

Christopher Steele

The Justice Department is not required to open investigations based on congressional referrals, but Nunes said he is willing to meet with  Attorney General William Barr  to discuss the matter. https://rightwingtribune.com/2020/05/13/nunes-to-make-8-criminal-referrals/

Nunes has sent 14 referrals altogether, primarily all Obama Admin types accused of lying or misleading Congress but refuses to name them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9    4 weeks ago

Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    4 weeks ago

Let's see,

the seed is about criminal referrals and the DOJ, Jim Comey, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton etc.

I am certain they are all on topic,

Thanks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.1    4 weeks ago
I am certain they are all on topic,

At times, people "know" things which aren't true.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.1    4 weeks ago
No wonder the damn gop is losing so badly. They are still rerunning the last election against the wrong candidates. Biden is not Clinton and this isn't 2016.

Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

Not my comment.  Try again?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.4    4 weeks ago

I didn't claim it was your comment, Read what I wrote, please.

"Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine."

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

I have read what you wrote.

It's not my quote that you block quoted to make it appear to be my comment. Period.

"Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine."

Don't beat around the bush Texan1211, say what you mean.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

In short, META. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.6    4 weeks ago
It's not my quote that you block quoted to make it appear to be my comment.

i have already stated it wasn't your comment, so why keep beating that horse?

Don't beat around the bush Texan1211, say what you mean.

Thanks for your permission and encouragement, but I already did. Thanks!

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.8    4 weeks ago
4  JBB    19 hours ago

No wonder the damn gop is losing so badly. They are still rerunning the last election against the wrong candidates. Biden is not Clinton and this isn't 2016.

Still unsure why you have me confused with JBB's comment from yesterday.

Perhaps you can elaborate?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.10    4 weeks ago

No confusion on my part at all.

I have already stated this:

"I didn't claim it was your comment"

and this:

"i have already stated it wasn't your comment"

so perhaps the confusion is on your end.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.11    4 weeks ago
so perhaps the confusion is on your end.

Apparently so neighbor.

"Looks like you consider this to be on topic, too, so obviously your "view" of what is on topic is certainly different than mine."

Well I don't know what my opinion on that comment matters,

but it is more than evident to many that your laser focused opinion of what constitutes "on topic"

needs a much wider angle lens.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.12    4 weeks ago
but it is more than evident to many that your laser focused opinion of what constitutes "on topic" needs a much wider angle lens.

Yeah, I don't need anyone to agree with me. If I cared about their opinions, I would ask for them.

And what is considered on or off topic is highly subjective, not objective.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.13    4 weeks ago
highly subjective, not objective.

Agree to disagree.

Have a nice weekend.

but feel free to have the last word jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.14    4 weeks ago
Agree to disagree.

Truly, shocking.

but feel free to have the last word

Thanks again for your vaunted permission. I can rest easy taking the last word now.

Adios.

 
 
 
MAGA
9.1.16  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.2    4 weeks ago

That’s especially true!  

 
 
 
MAGA
9.1.17  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.13    4 weeks ago

That’s so very true!  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

PJ
Sean Treacy
JaneDoe
Sunshine
pat wilson
gooseisgone
Ender
zuksam
JohnRussell
Trout Giggles


Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
GregTx
Dulay
Gordy327


41 visitors