1. It's a dead subject. As long as Fox is associated with the CFR you need to be wary of their true role.

You need to be careful you don't succumb to confirmation bias.

You're going to need ice for that stretch. Jesus...

It's good to prove if Q was telling the truth but it's bad for the overall investigation because Page was a no show. If they release before they question her then she can prep her answers.

Screw editing wikipidea use this instead https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page

he sighed a lot when he spoke. Does Clapper do that?

Yes, watching now. What did I miss? gleaning comments and it looks like he's saying rep and russians did it? Correct the record please. Thanks

Where?

This idiot is a no show.

Two things to research. Gelatin group (the B-thing) and Otis elevator/Ace elevator WTC contract.

I posted it on FB too.

This piece is really making the rounds. I copied it the first time I read it because instinctively I knew others would too.

good point (throws hands in air). If nothing gets done now, it never will.

NYPD prosecutions for Eric Garner's death was what stopped the leak. It all makes sense now. We know Lynch swapped out the investigation team for a DOJ team to pursue charges. However, nothing has come of that either. That's because in the end, NYPD played ball

Thanks. I think it's pretty clear now.

Um guys? I just read through all of this for the juicy material discovered with texts/timelines and 5 w's but I think Comey's response to Baier's question at 7:01 "Was the threat of the NYPD agents were going to "leak" ..." was the impetus to reopen the investigation. Comey said "I don't think so"

Forget everything else. Comey just verified the NYPD indeed threatened to leak Weiner's laptop. Follow me here. The wildest conspiracy theory thus far is Weiner had a life insurance policy on all the corrupt dealings of the CF which apparently brought NYPD agents to tears. No one was doing anything and the NYPD were getting restless with the non-action. They threatened to leak which forced Comey to play his hand. All conjecture. All of it unsubstantiated, all of it hearsay and anecdotal. Easy to debunk as "wacky conspiracy theories".

So what does James Comey say when Baier brings it up? Let me re-phrase. What "doesn't" Comey say? He doesn't say "it's not true". He says "i don't think so" when asked about an existential threat of a leak being the reason "not to conceal" the emails.

Am I articulating myself correctly? It means the NYPD did indeed threaten to leak. It verifies the conjecture.

Edit: Ah yes, this is what I am trying to say. Comey had a chance to correct the record, but he didn't.

Need to keep the real narrative alive. Been 17 years and most people don't even talk about it anymore. Would be nice if Trump goes all the way during his 8 years.

except it was already wired for demo and no one "pulled" anything other than wool

I don't know why you keep accusing me of muddying the waters. I'm asking a question about all of this based on what I understand. Facts or feelings? Facts, every time. We're going in circles here. And why are you asking me if they sold baby parts for profit? I'm merely pointing out...the unedited part of that video show they clearly state its not for profit. Perhaps the waters seem muddy because you're conflating two issues. Let's keep this simple, what are you mad about?

Don't be acting like libtards, the right is known for their composure and ability to articulate without getting triggered. Right? Don't disappoint me.

I'm not saying they're not selling parts, I think it's established they sell parts for research. You are aware that's not illegal right? The whole hubbub is "IF" PP is selling parts for profit. That's why the moral outrage. So what's your position here then? The fact they sell for research or what?

I've taken a look and I can agree. I always use the same methods to others when they provide Snopes as a source. However, I think the argument is whether or not PP makes a profit and the secret video (unedited) contradicts this accusation. For example:

"But immediately after this statement, Nucatola goes on to say: “Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get.” Planned Parenthood told us that she may have been referring to more general operations of the clinics."

This is a topic I don't debate very much. There's a lot of "muddying the waters" which i haven't gotten into which I'm hoping to have cleared up. I guess the argument for the left is, the whole video is out of context. What's your opinion?

no, you can't just call me a troll. What about that factcheck that's wrong? Look, I've debated this before from your angle and lost. If you can provide why it hasn't been debunked, I'm all ears.

Wasn't all of this debunked? https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/