>>1606138

I watched the Gowdy interview multiple times. His intentinally conflating of times was disturbing at best. His condoning of the FBI illegally spying on either a presidential campaign or President Elect is deeply disturbing. He does not speak for Americans on this issue.

If we have learned 1 thing in the last year, it's that we can't really trust anything we read. Even from previously trusted sites, ie; wikileaks.

Your faith in Gowdy is admirable, but you might be better off taking a wait and see attitude towards him. He is not an innocent. Let's let it play out before we throw all our eggs in one basket.

>>1606211

John just said his article won't come out until tomorrow, maybe?

>>1606245

Anon, I love reading Rex, but it's a twitter account. C'mon man. Is there any sauce for the 30+ indictments? Who was indicted? What about the 150+ criminal referrals? Who was referred?

None of what he says can be proved.

>>1606262

Just because you and a few other anons agree about Gowdy does not make it a settled fact and does not make it the consensus of the board. Some choose to remain quiet.

But calling anyone a shill or a newfag because they don't agree with you is extremely divisive. Put your holier-than-thou attitude back in the closest anon.

>>1606337

I hope his editor doesn't kill the story. The Hill is not Potus friendly.

>>1606270

I have something to say about that.

First of all, your attitude sucks.

Secondly, your thinking is skewed. Gowdy, as a member of Congress accepting campaign contributions from Podesta shows that they have something over Gowdy.

If you are not smart enough to see the difference between an "outsider" of DC contributing to a campaign vs a sitting member of congress accepting a contribution from a known black hat co. that has since been shit down, then you need to be the one paying attention and stop with the blind faith.

>>1606428

Proof?

>>1606410

Heard the same. I guess the timing is not right yet?

>>1606412

please stop posting stuff like this without sauce.

Twitter is not sauce.

>>1606402

you're gross. filtered

>>1606447

Sauce further up in the bread. I don't have it.

>>1606404

Ihave been here thru all the bread shitting on the constant discussions about Gowdy. Was also here for the same thing every single time Gowdy's name comes up. Not one of us knows for sure whether he is white or black hat. Anyone that says otherwise is jumping to conclusions and not paying attention. We are not meant to know at this time. That is for a reason. Just like Mueller. You are just as wrong to say he's our guy as others who say he is black hat. YOU don't know. You only assume.

I believe he is a gray hat that was blackmailed or his family threatened. His course has not yet been determined because of the forces still in play. But that is my opinion and I'm not trying to force it on anons.

>Go ahead and refute the aforementioned points.

OK, I will. You said:

>So we either have shills subtly pushing their game now or newfags that have only been following YouTube. Not sure which is worse.

I am neither a shill nor a newfag. That alone refutes your points.

I judge you based on your attitude, not on logical points of argument, which is what you are judging others on. You strongly believe Gowdy is /our guy/ and anyone that disagrees is either a shill or newfag. Big difference between us anon. I disagree with your assumptions but I judge your attitude.

>>1606519

I agree with you about that article further up in the bread. It is very misleading. Gowdy did not appear to obstruct the investigation. It was PR. (Not surprised). There is a lot of disinfo about Gowdy. All I can say is he's a great actor.

>>1606501

your reading comprehension is poor.

>>1606393

>The Hill was the first to push the story that Comey gave classified info in his memos. I NEVER said they didn't push any Potus friendly articles. Read the majority of their articles and judge for yourself. Has WaPo or NYT printed friendly articles? Yes. Are they Potus friendly? NO.

>>1606434

>Point to where I said they didn't have anything on Gowdy. You are conflating the points. Can't believe I need to go back and point this shit out to you.

Anon said Gowdy took money from Podesta making it not a great feather in his white hat. Anon made a great point. But, you came back with the smart ass reply of….

>Trump donated to Hillary and Schumer. Have anything to say about that or are u gonna wake up yet?

I replied to you stating the most obvious difference between the 2 situations and they are apples and oranges. Obviously.

My post did not say anything about you not saying they didn't have anything on Gowdy. Conflating the issue. I don't need to go back and re read anything. Because it has nothing to do with our current discussion.

> POTUS donated to HRC and CS and knew they were dirty. Problem was he had to play the game to do anything in NY

AGAIN, you are comparing an outsider (Potus) donating to a politcal camapign long before annoucing his intent to run for office to a sitting member of Congress accepting donating from the opposing party. Apples and Oranges.

Now, you refute anything I've said.

> That's the point. If ur ability to use logic is skewed by "my attitude" that says something about You anon.

^^^^^

This anon keeps me from even wanting to have any rational discourse with you. In fact, this is my last post to you.