... Democrats, FBI & Russians meddled in election

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

An extremely based and questionable article. But it shows the effort that the far right is putting in to discredit the FBI and the Russia investigation. "If" Mueller is fired there will be a fire storm of protest which will include this aging progressive. Firing Mueller on this thin evidence demonstrates Trump has something to hide.

Every American has a right to a political point of view, and that includes members of the FBI. You certainly do not criticize Roy Moore for his bizarre views, and he was supposed to be a judge. No, everybody, not just conservatives , has a right to political opinions. So what is the point of all of this? Besides, Mueller fired the agent when he discovered that he had a bias which was the right thing to do, just as CNN fired three reporters simply because they printed information that did not meet CNN standards" in an article about Russian investors and Trump http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html. When has your side fired anybody for outright lying about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

No, the right does what it always does when it is backed into a corner; it attacks. And it is not afraid to undermine a cherished institution to protect itself and its president. Rule of law be damned.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

First, Rod Rosenstein, in his congressional testimony, said he did not have cause to fire Mueller. He felt Mueller is above reproach and that Mueller's team did not violate "the appearance" of impropriety. All appearance is "in the eye of the beholder" as he said https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ro ... ORM=VRDGAR The point is there is no evidence that Mueller has done anything wrong and every indication that Trump has something to hide.

Remember, Mueller is a Republican. He was a decorated war hero who has been applauded at ever level of government he has served. This guy has given no evidence of impropriety other than in the minds of conservative commentators and Donald Trump. Everybody knows that Trump is the one with a bias; he is likely an object of investigation; that gives him a strong bias.

It is very dangerous when the right wing media tries to prejudice its followers against completion of this investigation. If it is aborted, then one has to wonder what the president has to hide. My guess is there will be all hell to pay. All we need is an investigation, even handed and fair, and there is no evidence that Mr. Mueller will not do just that, the fears of the far right aside. If something emerges, I might change my mind, but there is nothing out there to indicate the need for that.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, I gave a source that said people did not think Russia was a witch hunt according to polls https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ ... ls-235667; this source is credible. WND is a right wing hack source. And Rod Rosenstein said he felt Mueller has integrity and there was no legitimate reason to fire him. I have a legitimate source that says Russia is not a witch hunt and you have a suspect far right journal that says it is. I will let the reasonable among our audience decide.

And Bob Mueller is a man of honor and commitment. Mueller came from a privileged background and volunteered for the Marine Corp and then Vietnam. He was wounded; Trump hid behind a minor problem to get out of serving. And it was not because he was a peacenik; it was because he simply did not want to put his life on the line for things he now asks others to do.

It has been established that Russia hacked the DNC according to about 17 intelligence agencies https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+ ... e&ie=UTF-8 As you can see volumes of articles have been written about it.

I agree one of us is an idiot. But if you think Donald Trump is a man of honor, I question your judgment.. Trump said he fired Comey over the Russia scandal. What is Trump afraid of? You did not address that. No, let Mueller do his job. What are you afraid of? Finding out that you have been seduced by a lie?

And some of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to me. The lack of evidence and of reason for them baffle me. I do know that President Trump is attacking some of our most cherished institutions to save himself, and you do not get it which is very sad. The acid test is the evidence which cannot be unearthed if we do not look for it. If President Trump was sincerely interested in our security he would embrace the Russia probe and stop trying to divert attention to non issues like Hillary Clinton and truly dangerous issues like attacks on our intelligence gathering community, our media and our scientific community.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

I give Michaels credit for attempting to defend his beliefs here but this is some batshit crazy stuff.

By this point, most Trump supporters have retreated to their MAGA Twitter echo chamber where they mostly interact with Russians pretending to be attractive American women. MAGA, indeed.

[leftyg]

[hmmmmm]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

I saw red when I looked at you response, literally. I am first going to respond to the Obama statement that "you can keep your insurance if you want to." The truth is that is an opinion based on his consultation with insurance company executives. Obama had no power to stop them from cancelling policies if they wanted to. He never had it before, and did not acquire it after Obamacare passed and was implemented. It was a foolish statement, and he should not have made it because it was not his call.

The equation that conservatives often make is with Bush and WMD. They say he was not lying because the information he got he thought was true. In the same way, Obama had to believe that he was getting accurate information. And Obama was making a prediction. I made a prediction over a year ago that the Indians would win the World Series; I was wrong. It was not a lie because you cannot lie about the outcome of a future event or an unknown event.

About private non-group insurance policies: a poll was done by the Urban Institute of 522 people 18-64 receiving these policies and 18.6 % said that they were cancelled in the year after Obamacare was implemented. The conservative group Americans for Prosperity said that 4.7 million policies were cancelled. The Centers for Disease Control said that there were 14 million such policies in force in the United States. Lead author on the study, Lisa Clemans-Cope said there was a 95% probability that the true percent of people losing coverage was between 16.2-23,3% of all enrollees which is far less than 4,7 million. Most likely it is about 2.6 million, or some number between 2.3 and 3.2 million people.

AND you have to remember that private insurance policies were cancelled before Obamacare for reasons that only insurers know. Forbes Magazine said that fewer policies were cancelled under Obamacare than before https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapse ... 25ea8b1f76. Which is something conservative never mention..

This is a lot of time spent on just one lie and Michaels because of the people you admire, you get lied to a lot and are bound to take it out on people like me. But when a lie is easily identifiable, as with Trump, it is easy to count. The fact that these are numerous, like shooting fish in a barrel, makes them easy to quantify.

But before I watch the Cav's play the Warriors I have to address this. You are right, that unemployment has gone down, but it is what you would expect as the economy imporves. What happens to this improvements remains to be seen. Remember that these numbers may adjust as Republican policies take effect next year. Right now we are still living under tax policies established by Obama. So we have to wait and see. And as the economy gets better and the job market tightens, you would expect the U6 number to go down faster. One problem: the Republicans do not like tight job markets; they like surplus labor. Got to go. LeBron is calling me.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[the whispering eye]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

First a cold fact: Obamacare is still going because it is becoming popular with people. This is basic logic Michaels: a Republican president with majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Supreme Court amenable to repeal could not get it done. Obamacare is a complete failure in the minds of delusional people like the folks at Powerline . That is why the repeal failed.

We both know it happened and the reason ought to be simple to you. You can wail in denial all you want, but to millions of people it has been a blessing. And if you could read your own polling data and not believe the overblown headline you would get your answer yourself. First this is a perception poll. Directly Helped got 15%; No Direct Help got 56% and Directly Hurt got 25% nationally. But in YOUR state it got 35% for Directly Helped; 21% for No Direct Help and 27% for Directly Hurt.

Also, your poll is old, from 2016. The trend line for more recent polling data shows that 51.3% of all respondents favor Obamacare while 40.5% oppose it. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ealth-bill So you are wrong on the data, and the the politics of if it confirm that outcome. There will be holy hell to pay with voters if it is repealed, and the GOP knows it. For a long time it was a tool they used with the base, but when they had the opportunity to wield the cudgel of repeal they failed to do so, and breathed a slight sigh of relief. Yeah, wingnuts like you will always believe it is a bad law. And this whole discussion should have ended when Wobbly put up the chart showing that the cost of public health care went up more slowly than private health care. But facts and reason be damned on this subject.

[leftyg]

As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.

And Like your friend Whispering Eye, the Mueller investigation has a time table for releasing information, and they will tell you in due time and during appropriate proceedings. They sure as hell are not going to leak it now, either way. So all of what Nunez and his obviously biased talk implies means nothing. The wheels of justice move slowly.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"]As to Devin Nunez, he was caught going to the White House with information from his House Committee which, if nothing else, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. His loyalty should be to the Constitution and not to the president. He serves the members of the House and the people of his district, not President Trump. He had no business going to the White House with information.He Leftyg, was Devin Nunez "caught"
going to the White House? Did somebody snap some photographs of him "sneaking in the back door late at night or in the early hours of the morning? Did Mr Nunez wear a disguise as he entered the White House?
I don't think that there is anything illegal about Mr. Nunez going to see the president or the attorney general about this investigation. He could be going over the problems that Mr. Nunez referred to, they could be discussing the next steps if their is not compliance to the January deadline. If you think there is something wrong here then I would like to see some kind of legal reference. This is an investigation of the FBI and DOJ, It might be different if it were about the Russian Collusion investigation, but even there I am not sure if there is anything wrong here. Couldn't Mr. Nunez call President Trump or Mr. Sessions on the phone and talk about the proceedings as well? And if he did call him on the phone, who would know about it?

[leftyg]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Just as suspected. There was nothing wrong with last March meeting. Just a bunch off manure throwing libs whinning again.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

This is usually a good precursor to hearing more news coming from Mueller. Usually once the President and his propaganda outlets leach onto conspiracy theories like this, it's to distract and discredit what will soon happen.

[Michaels153]

I have noticed that. I would not call it a pattern but it almost appears so. This has nothing to do with the President, nor has it to do with propaganda. And it is the Democrats who proposed this conspiracy theory of Russian collusion. Plus it has been the democrats behind the leaks.
It wont go on forever.

[Michaels153]

Facebook tells Congress it can't prove or disprove Trump-Russia collusion
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/25/18

[quote]Facebook informed Congress in newly released documents that it could not prove or disprove collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russians who may have used the online platform to try to sway opinions during the 2016 presidential campaign. No Evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion regarding the 2016 Presidential campaign

In written questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Facebook representatives were asked whether metadata on their site could reveal possible collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, a possibility raised by some researchers.

"Several independent researchers have said that Facebook has the ability to search for content or metadata that could substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion between the Russian disinformation operation and the Trump campaign’s own social media efforts, such as timing of certain posts and sharing of content. a. Is this true, and if so, has Facebook found any information relevant to these allegations?" the question reads. So "several Independent researchers have said that Facebook has the ability that could substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion between the Russian disinformation operation and the Trump campaign's own social media efforts."....

"Facebook does not believe it is in a position to substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion," the company responded, according to documents released by the committee Thursday. Although independent researchers believe that Facebook has the ability to substantiate (or disprove) allegations of possible collusion, Facebook says that it does not believe it is in a position to substantiate or disprove allegations of possible collusion. ....


"Facebook is, however, providing investigators, including this Committee, with information it has regarding the scope and nature of Russian information operations on our platform so that those investigators have information that may be relevant to their inquiries," it continued. "We are happy to schedule a meeting with your staff to discuss our findings in more detail."

The comments from Facebook come just months after the company turned over thousands of ads purportedly purchased by Russian agents on the platform during the 2016 race.

“We believe it is vitally important that government authorities have the information they need to deliver to the public a full assessment of what happened in the 2016 election,” Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch said in a post in September. “That is an assessment that can be made only by investigators with access to classified intelligence and information from all relevant companies and industries — and we want to do our part.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also addressed reports that Russians used the social network to influence public opinion during the campaign in a video posted to the website last year.

“I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy,” he said. “That’s not what we stand for.”

Earlier this week, Democrats in the House and Senate called on Facebook and other social media sites to fight the influence of Russian bots on their platforms, warning that foreign actors were trying to influence opinion against special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia. And now, after having seeking out Facebook to find evidence of collusion and finding none, they nevertheless urge Facebook (and others) to fight -......uh, ...er.....THE LACK OF EVIDENCE of RUSSIAN INFlUENCE that is now aimed at Robert Mueller's probe.

“It is critically important that the Special Counsel’s investigation be allowed to proceed without interference from inside or outside the United States,” the lawmakers wrote. “That is why we seek your assistance in our efforts to counter Russia’s continuing efforts to manipulate public opinion and undermine American democracy and the rule of law.” Translation: Even though there is no evidence of wrongdoing here, (and there never has been any evidence of wrongdoing regarding collusion and the presidential election), IT is critically important to us and our fundraising efforts that this Sucker's Counsel of a witch hunt, be allowed to proceed

[the whispering eye]

[the whispering eye]

[Michaels153]

[the whispering eye]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

We already know that the memo contains incomplete and misleading information. That's why a second memo was written, that the House and GOP leadership is choosing not to release.

The whole thing is just a political ploy to place distrust in the FBI so Trump has justification to fire Rosenstein and then replace him with someone who can fire Mueller.

If liars like Paul Ryan really view this as a separate issue from the Mueller investigation, they'd move forward with formally protecting Mueller.

This memo is part of the GOP's hail mary strategy for 2018, an election year they have no business losing due to their gerrymandered districts, but are now facing the possibility because they're so radically unpopular and corrupt.

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

Trump supporters had 8 years of angry Fox News under Obama, peddling every crackpot conspiracy theory you could think of. Then they got the Fox News President they've always wanted, and he's more than happy to promote more crackpot conspiracies to try and discredit and destroy the institutions set up to protect us against abuses of power like Trump, Nunes, and Ryan are showing.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

It would be hard to find a chief reason for this memo. The information in it benefits one person: Vladimir Putin who is sitting in his Kremlin office having a good time as Americans go after one another and compromise their own secret intelligence operations for Russian benefit.

[Michaels153]

[Scorpion]

Michaels, as many have inquired, to what benefit is a Trump presidency to Putin?
He was/is a political unknown as far as actions he would take on any foreign policy for the most part.
I have still yet to hear compelling arguments as to why he would work against a known commodity such as Clinton.

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

So, you can take two roads:

Road 1 - Wild speculation based on your biases that ignore all evidence and sits solely within your echo chamber. If evidence against your pre-conceived viewpoint arises, support a conspiracy theory that "explains" why the evidence is invalid.

Road 2 - Look at the publicly available information that clearly shows Russian interference, which almost entirely focused on damaging Hillary Clinton through theft and publication of private emails and a large scale disinformation campaign on social media.

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

The problem isn't whether or not Russia was successful in meddling with an election, just like it doesn't matter if a bank robber was successful in getting away with the money.

You also keep asking why Russia would want to help Trump. Does that mean you agree with the evidence that suggests Russia did attempt to help Trump win? Or are you saying they didn't try to help Trump win?

[Michaels153]

Juiced, I dont keep asking "why Russia would want to help Trump except to answer questions posed to me such as Scorpion's.
Next question - what evidence "suggests"? Evidence proves or falsifies something. "Evidence" does not suggest.
Do you want to specify what "suggests" that Russia wanted to help Trump.
You want to remember your bank robber analogy? It does not matter who likes who here.
Did you read what i posted to Scorpion? I dont think Russia really cared who won the election.
What evidence is there that Russia helped Trump win the election? Again, Hilary won the popular vote. No evidence of actual votes being changed in any state. Facebook - can't tell.
In plain English, Hilary lost, Trump won.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

I'd suggest starting out by reading this in its entirety:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... _elections

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Did you read the Wiki entry on Russia?

[Michaels153]

Yes.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Let's just ignore the fact that Mueller is a Republican, drew enormous amounts of support from Republicans previously, as well as when he was named special counsel. Let's also ignore the fact that there have been multiple indictments and guilty pleas from people surrounding Trump, related to the investigation. Let's also ignore that Page was a person of interest prior to the dossier and that these people around Trump had shady ties to Eastern Europe for many years, before their involvement with Trump. Let's also ignore how intertwined Trump and Kushner's real estate businesses are with Russian financiers and how Russia is a hot-bed for real-estate money laundering. Let's also forget that Charles Kusher, Jared's father, is a convicted felon who served time in federal prison. Let's forget all of Trump's comments and actions with him getting involved with the Justice Department in relation to the investigation involving him.

Let's ignore all that and instead peddle two-bit conspiracy theories and use the airwaves to stir up distrust in the FBI where it is completely unwarranted. Let's continue to focus on trying to throw Hillary Clinton in prison because she was our opponent. Let's continue to lend sympathy to white supremacists, domestic abusers, sexual assaulters and harassers. Because when I think of America being great, it involves all those things.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[hmmmmm]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Kim Dotcom: "Let Me Assure You, The DNC Hack Wasn’t Even A Hack"
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/19/2018

Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted "Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!" alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.


Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why. Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/us-election/dnchack-did-kim-dotcom-warn-the-world-about-the-democratic-party-hacking-20160622-gpp15a.html … https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 6204003328 …

1:42 PM - Feb 18, 2018

Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator, who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick.

The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.

John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a phishing scam) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according to the Washington Post.

On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.

Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I'll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @Wikileaks source.

5:42 PM - May 19, 2017

On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"

Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/ ... 7384072194 …

12:46 PM - May 20, 2017

Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:

"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment."

Dotcom knew.

While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a website known as "DCLeaks."

In a May 14, 2015 Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016": "I have to say it’s probably more Julian,” who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. “But I’m aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her.”

Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
Hillary Clinton is raising a mountain of cash for her Presidential bid. I think it might turn into ash.

2:08 PM - May 16, 2015
117
109 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question


Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
Will hackers 0wn the U.S. presidential election and prevent Hillary Clinton? #Wikileaks

10:45 AM - Jul 12, 2016
209
123 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on the internet who's going to jail?"

Kim Dotcom
✔
@KimDotcom
Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on the Internet who's going to jail? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us ... &referrer= …

8:08 PM - Jul 25, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton visiting Greenville Technical College in South Carolina on Thursday.
Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data
Mrs. Clinton pledged accountability as investigators cited four emails from the personal email account she used as secretary of state.

mobile.nytimes.com

It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied."

NO HACK!
NO COLLUSION!
NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

But that does not matter. The show must go on. Just ask Maxine

[JuicedTruth]

Wow, bringing up Seth Rich again

And Kim Dotcom? Really?

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the FBI did the right thing by ignoring Kim Dotcom. Nothing he has ever done in life has ever lent any credibility to what he says.

[Scorpion]

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

Yes, let's compare someone with a 30 year career in intelligence to Kim Dotcom.

[Scorpion]

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

I think it's worth pointing out that the subject of this thread has been proven wrong, unless you don't believe the FBI indictment.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

More questions are coming out now regarding Mueller, the way he is controlling this investigation and his judgement in having certain people as part of his team.
Sean Hannity discussed the probe into the anti-Trump dossier has expanded to Obama, and to members of Obam's administration.
On Tuesday, Sean Hanity's opening monologue began with news of questions that Devin Nunes had prepared for the last occupant of the white house.
Also, Mr. Hannity questions whether Mr. Mueller is interested in the equal applicaton of the law as he looks at the contents of the Russian indictments and wants to know if the areas of the indictments could equally be applied to Hilary, Mr. Steele, Fusion GPS, and the law firm used as a go between to make the payments.
There is a sixteen minute video on the fox website that is worth watching.

[JuicedTruth]

A good way to make sure you avoid disinformation, idiotic conspiracy theories, and general asshole-ishness is to never listen to anything Sean Hannity says. He's by far one of the most prominent peddlers of fake news bullshit. See Seth Rich, Roy Moore, McCain seeking money from Russians, obsession over "deep state", etc. I'd say over the last year, he's lost whatever credibility he ever had, but really he never had any to begin with.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo

I have text from the actual Democrat memo below:
свидетельства показывают, что мы общались с русскими
и что наша партия заполнена идиотами

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, we all understand that these are just allegations right now. Get a dictionary and look up the words " circumstantial evidence." Cicumstamtial evidence cannot convict you, but it can get an indictment and it can lead investigators to the information they need to make a conviction. So my statements about the platform committee stands as evidence as does Trump's statement that the sanctions were seriously flawed. That is not a lie, and it should raise suspicion.

And that is how a case is built you bring up hearsay You say in a real laugher that Your point? By that definition any prosectution is hearsay. You simply do not know what you are talking about. I did not say Trump is guilty. I said he should be investigated because something stinks. The investigation, which is ongoing, will resolve the situation.

And You attack President Obama with an outdated article from 2013 when I have given many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the opposite. That makes you 0 for 3 because you just do not get the difference between he should be investigated and he is guilty.

And look at the utter lack of evidence and reason that sustained the right wing house through about nine fruitless and wasteful investigatins of Benghazi which was and is a non-issue to anybody who is not a right wing partisan hack.

Michaels, you are losin' it.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, this is a fact. Mike Rogers admitted that he has not been told by Trump to disrupt Russian hacks See video: https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-r ... 1790915552 Hearsay may not be proof, but it often opens the door to important inquiry. And you have to ask the question Wyhy does Trump not care about this when he seems to still care about Hillary's emails. Why does he seem more intent on attacking domestic enemies than foreign threats to our democracy.

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[global93]

terima kasih banyak

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

MIchaels, have you been drinking? Do you really believe this horse shit?

[JuicedTruth]

There's reality and then there's MAGA World, Disney World for the insane.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Wow, a constitutional crisis -- what a thing to hang your hat on.

[hmmmmm]

[JuicedTruth]

[hmmmmm]

[JuicedTruth]

[hmmmmm]

[JuicedTruth]

Impeachment, barring a smoking gun, likely non-process crime (e.g. not obstruction, perjury, etc.), is just a political action. If the Dems take the majority, they could, and might, impeach Trump easily if they wished to. I don't think it would be that smart of a move but the point is that they could.

[hmmmmm]

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Dems need to be more focused on winning as many House and Senate seats as possible. Trump impeachment is a separate issue that they shouldn't run on. Stopping Trump's power is more realistic and important than removing him from office. Besides, unless you also impeach Pence, are you actually better off with Pence as President than Trump? And if you remove Trump and Pence, you get Paul Ryan, which would be a catastrophic disaster.

The way to shield yourself against any of this is to get more votes in the House and Senate, so focus on that. Do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama in 2010, not what the GOP did to Clinton in 1998.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Uh Oh: New Texts Suggest Obama WH, CIA, FBI, And Harry Reid Colluded At Outset Of Russia Probe
By Matt Vespa |Posted: Mar 28, 2018


Despite Newly Disclosed Texts, Sessions Refuses Call for Second Special Counsel
Mar 30, 2018

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

So just an update:

Paul Manafort (Trump Campaign Chair): indicted on 28 counts

George Papadopoulos (Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser): Pleaded guilty

Rick Gates (Trump Campaign Deputy Chair): Pleaded guilty

Michael Flynn (Trump's National Security Adviser): Pleaded guilty

Michael Cohen (Trump's attorney and former Vice President of Trump Organization):
Under criminal investigation, search warrant executed (same thing that happened to Manafort, indictment very likely)

But yep, nothing to see here! Total witch hunt!

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Cohen is under investigation, in-part, in relation to campaign-finance, so it is election related. All indicted were involved in Trump campaign.

[leftyg]

Not a big fan of reason are you Michaels. Let's see this through to the end. If Trump is innocent, he will be exonerated; if he is guilty the congress will just give him a pass, but the people will know.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Man, it must suck to simultaneously be so deeply enmeshed by paranoia while being sycophantically attached to someone.

[Michaels153]

Right back at you. Just file this away with the other faux facts that you continue to cling to like evolution is real, Creationism is not science, and Obama has nothing to hide.

[JuicedTruth]

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

Mueller is also a Republican and received widespread support when he was announced as Special Council. Once the indictments started coming down and it was shown that this investigation had teeth, that's when the right-wing propaganda machine started.

What's crazy is that Republicans are basically wanting the FBI to ignore potential evidence or criminal behavior because Republicans feel it's "out of scope". How do you, as a law enforcer, ignore evidence of criminal behavior? That's insane. I just don't see why Republicans would be so upset over Mueller handing evidence to the NY District for them to look into Cohen, other than the fact that Cohen is Trump's attorney. They have sold their souls to support Trump, so they must protect him (from Mueller, the media, himself, etc.) at all cost.

I think the chickens will be coming home to roost soon. Ryan's departure can't indicate a bright future. Even though Ryan was a small, sad, and pathetic shill for corporations and the rich, I doubt he'd be "retiring" if he thought he'd continue as Speaker, which means feared losing his district, losing the House majority, or losing Republican support in the House. I doubt the House GOP would turn on him, so it must be the other two scenarios and both are bad for the GOP.

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Incredible propaganda campaign against Mueller. It's a sad attempt by the pro-Trump media to create a cloud around Mueller's competence in case Trump decides to recklessly fire him, Sessions, or Rosenstein. Of course, the Comey book promotion has triggered these people, hard.

[leftyg]

Let's stop with the nonsense that Comey and Mueller are men of integrity and honor.
Whatever kind of positive characterizations they once received, their reputations have been sullied by their own actions, and not from the people who are aware of their history and have observed their actions in the Russian collusion investigation of the past election.
It is not just "the right" who find fault with both Comey and Mueller, and this investigation. Alan Dershowitz has pointed out some of the legal blunders of this investigation, and even the Salon is not convinced of the claim that the DNC server was hacked after publishing the article from the Nation which pointed out that the server was never even examined, so no determination could be made if it was hacked.
Why don't you stop the nonsense about Trump having integrity or honor. Mueller bravely fought in Vietnam despite the fact he really did not have to. Meanwhile, Trump hid behind his bones spurs back in the states. The truth is you care only about one thing: the privilege of the rich as you motto says:
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
You left out: and give it to the rich, the deserving rich.

[JuicedTruth]

What's amazing to me with Trump supporters is that there isn't a reality that could exist where both Trump and Mueller have integrity. To them, it's either one or the other.

It's seems like an exceptionally stupid way to look at things, considering Trump has proven to lie constantly and the attempts to smear Mueller have been pretty weak.

Why not just let the investigation run it's course without constantly bitching about it. We've already seen indictments and it's not like the FBI can just raid Cohen without a warrant, so an impartial judge would have had to approve of that. Of course, I'm sure the Trump wonks will just say that judge is part of the "deep state"

[Michaels153]

Howie Carr: Come clean on FBI frame-up, Bob Mueller
Howie Carr Thursday, April 12, 2018


What did Bob Mueller know about the FBI’s framing of four innocent men for a murder they didn’t commit, and when did he know it?

This is an important question for the “special counsel,” and for two days I’ve been emailing his press office, asking for answers about his tenure in the U.S. attorney’s office here, specifically, his time as acting US attorney in 1986-87.

No response. Zip, zero, nada.

This is a major FBI scandal, perhaps the most outrageous one in American history. The FBI railroaded four men to prison for a murder the G-men knew they did not commit, and then made sure they remained in prison for upwards of 30 years.

They (or their estates, because two of them died in prison) were eventually awarded a total of $102 million in 2007 by a federal judge for false imprisonment.

The four men were Henry Tameleo, Peter Limone, Louis Greco and Joseph Salvati. They were convicted of murdering a small-time hoodlum named Teddy Deegan in a Chelsea alley in March 1965. An FBI informant named Joe Barboza committed perjury in a state trial in 1968, to settle some old scores and protect one of his old friends, another serial killer who was the brother of another serial-killing FBI informant .

The FBI knew Barboza was lying. On March 19, 1965, one of the crooked G-men in the office, who later died in a prison hospital while under indictment for a 1981 gangland hit in Tulsa, wrote a memo to J. Edgar Hoover pointing out the names of the actual murderers of Deegan.

Yet the FBI remained silent as the four men were convicted, and then imprisoned. Two were sent to what was then Death Row.

As the years went by, it was more and more obvious that they had been framed. In 1973, a true-crime book by a Mafia associate, “My Life in the Mafia,” laid out the entire railroad. No one challenged the facts, but the men remained behind bars.

In the early 1980’s, Greco (who was in Florida the night of the murder) passed a lie-detector test on live TV. But still they were not released, in large part because U.S. attorneys in Boston continually demanded that the innocent men not be paroled.

Mueller went to work in the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston in 1982. His boss was then U.S. attorney Bill Weld, the future governor. On July 1, 1983, Weld wrote the following to the state Parole Board demanding Peter Limone not be released.

“This office,” Weld wrote, “recommends most strongly that the petition for commutation of Mr. Limone’s sentence be denied.”

Another letter opposing Limone’s parole was written by FBI Supervisory Special Agent John M. Morris, likewise recommending against release because “should Mr. Limone be released, he would enjoy a position of elevated status within the Boston Organized Crime Structure.”

That letter was written Jan. 27, 1983, approximately eight months after Morris had told a gangster the identity of a federal informant against gangster Whitey Bulger, which led to the murder of two men by Bulger in South Boston in May 1982. Morris had passed on the information to a member of Bulger’s mob, another corrupt FBI agent John “Zip” Connolly. Connolly is now serving a 40-year sentence in Florida for yet another Mob rubout, in Miami.
Morris has admitted that at the time he was lobbying the Parole Board not to release the innocent men, he was accepting $7,000 in payoffs from Bulger and his partner, Stevie Flemmi. Flemmi has told the DEA that he and Bulger were paying off six FBI agents in the Boston office.

Mueller succeeded Weld as U.S. attorney, serving from Oct. 10, 1986 until April 6, 1987.

Mueller was followed as U.S. attorney by Frank L. McNamara, Jr., who continued the office’s policy of demanding that the innocent men not be released from state prison.

“It seems to me wrong to conclude now that Mr. Limone has been sufficiently punished,” McNamara wrote the chairman of the parole board on Sept 22, 1987. “In my judgement, Mr. Limone must be considered among the most heinous criminals being held in the Massachusetts Prison System.”

Limone, who died last year, was awarded $26 million by Judge Nancy Gertner. The federal government did not appeal the judgment.


[So Mueller’s predecessor and his successor both lobbied state authorities not to release the innocent men. But did Mueller? Michael Albano, a former member of the Parole board, as well as a former mayor of Springfield, says he has seen a letter Mueller wrote about the imprisoned men.]

“I saw the letter – I will take a lie-detector test, make a sworn statement, whatever,” Albano was saying yesterday. “I reviewed the Parole Board records before I testified in 2003 before the House Government Reform Committee, and there was a letter from Mueller in the files.”

In 2013, the Boston Globe also reported the existence of such a letter from Mueller.


However, the Parole Board now cannot find such a letter. I have searched the files in the state archives, where I found the letters from the other two U.S. attorneys, as well as from the corrupt FBI agent on the Mob’s payroll. But I could find no letters from Mueller opposing the commutations or paroles.

So far, the special counsel’s office has not responded to two inquiries as to whether Mueller ever lobbied to keep the innocent men behind bars, despite the overwhelming evidence of their innocence, including records of the FBI, which he would eventually run for eight years.

I also inquired whether he was involved in the decisions during Weld’s tenure to demand the continuing incarceration of men who were widely known to be not guilty of the murder for which they were convicted.
So far, no answers. So let me ask him the question again publicly.

Mr. Mueller, what did you know about the framing of four innocent men for a crime they did not commit? When you were working in, and then running the office that insisted that the innocent men not be released from prison, did you ever write any letters demanding that the parole board not correct this gross miscarriage of justice?

[quote JuicedTruth: "What's amazing to me with Trump supporters is that there isn't a reality that could exist where both Trump and Mueller have integrity. To them, it's either one or the other." You have framed these two individuals in a false light. If that is the way that it appears to you it is because you want to look at it and believe that, but it is fallacious.

It's seems like an exceptionally stupid way to look at things, I agree, the way that you and Leftyg are looking at this is exceptionally stupid.considering Trump has proven to lie constantly No, President Trump has not been proven by anybody to lie constantly. You don't like it when he nails the media on their false reporting, so you focus on when he has not been accurate such as the size of the inauguation crowd.and the attempts to smear Mueller have been pretty weak. How is pointing out relevant facts about his work history as an investigator a smear campaign. I think your perspective is deeply flawed. You, the left, and some Democrats view this investigation of a non-crime as a legitimate undertaking. There is no need to question Mueller's integrity because after all, he served his country going to Vietnam. Why that alone is supposed to give him a free pass for the rest of his life and assure everyone that he can do no wrong (because he went to Vietnam.) Well, did he hone his skills to ignore evidence in Vietnam? Did he learn how narrow his focus in an investigation in Vietnam to only a single party regardless of what the other party does. Did he learn in Vietnam to exonerate his own co-workers in the FBI and to abusurdly contend that
they make no mistakes as he did in the anthrax investigation?

Why not just let the investigation run it's course without constantly bitching about it. I can think of a number of reasons beginning with-What is it's course?" Mueller spent 10 years in a botched Anthrax investigation costing millions of dollars. To Mueller, finding no evidence is a green light to look at anything else just to keep his paychecks coming.(Oh but maybe I should'nt say that because you know that Mueller went to Vietnam.) We've already seen indictments and it's not like the FBI can just raid Cohen without a warrant, so an impartial judge would have had to approve of that. Just like getting an impartial judge in the FISA court approved surveillance on Carter Page?
Hey JuicedTruth, why don't you just say it's not like the FBI could ever be corrupt. Or that the FBI could ever be dishonest.

[leftyg]

I agree, the way that you and Leftyg are looking at this is exceptionally stupid.

First I am flattered that you put me in league with JT becasue I do not think he is been exceptionally stupid; only an exceptionally stupid person would say that with all the quality of argument JT has consistently presented. In 35 years it is likely that a prosecutor will make some mistakes, but notice this "big mistake " happened 15 years before his tenure began

No, President Trump has not been proven by anybody to lie constantly. You don't like it when he nails the media on their false reporting, so you focus on when he has not been accurate such as the size of the inauguation crowd.

Data shows Trump has told over 2400 lies since taking office https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 426d5f6ee1 And they are documemnted

How is pointing out relevant facts about his work history as an investigator a smear campaign. I think your perspective is deeply flawed. I think your perspective is flawed by your bias. An event that happened almost 50 years ago when Mueller was defending his country in Vietnam (before he went to law school) has little relevance. Also, director Mueller is under incredible scrutiny right now, and it is unlikely he will cut any corners.

Just like getting an impartial judge in the FISA court approved surveillance on Carter Page?


The fact that Page had contact with the Russians in 2013 was probably enough to get him investigated http://time.com/5132126/carter-page-russia-2013-letter/ And his admission that he talked to Sergei Kyslyak in Cleveland at the Republican convention probably further warranted the FISA Court approval. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ ... ing-235626

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Okay, maybe I was using hyperbole when I used the word exceptional. It probably is more accurate to just place you two in the category of stupid. Maybe you could get matching shirts that say "I'm with stupid".
Or maybe you can get a t-shirt that say's "I stand with stupid."

Again, you do little to validate your argument. Not agreeing with you does not make anybody stupid; it might make them smart. What I want you to do is look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It would be instructive, particularly for you. JT and I use evidence; we only use anecdotes to counter what you write because anecdotes do not prove anything. This link has a list of the weaknesses of anecdotal argument http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures ... unreliable. The idea is that anecdotes are not representative and can back up anything. For example, nobody knows if the tax cuts are working; historical evidence suggests that they merely help the rich. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/news/ec ... index.html But one thing is for sure: we do not know how this round of cuts helps anybody yet, and to think you have "proof" is just to indulge in fanciful thinking.

When your position is wrong, all the pretty prose in the world can't change it. "A rose, by any other name ....

And your point? BTW poor prose don't make you right either.

If your willing to acknowledge that a prosecutor will make some mistakes, And accept that Mueller has made mistakes in this investigation, then concede the likelihood that he could make more mistakes in this investigation

That is a red herring (notice you tend to telegraph them by writing in red). What matters is this investigtion, and this investigation only. You do not know what Mueller has; you only know what your right wing handlers (not the brightest bulbs in bunch) tell you to believe. I have an idea Mueller knows some interesting things, and we can find them out in due time. Just let the process unfold.

That's the key word - HAD, but the FBI had to sell some excuse for their surveillance of President Trump.

I am sure they have found many connections between Trump and the Russians. It is curious that the party platform changed in Cleveland in Russia's favor, https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/56831079 ... ne-support that sanctions against the Russians, passed by Congress, were never enforced by Trump https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1FI2V7 And the latest round of sanctions announced by Nikki Haley at the United Nations will not be enforced by Trump. http://digg.com/2018/nikki-haley-trump- ... t-confused The point is Trump does not insult Putin while he excoriates even our friends, but he will not say a bad word about Vlad the Inhaler.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[JuicedTruth]

Trump has already done a full-assault on the media, in an attempt to discredit any negative information reported on him. He's now doing the same thing to the Justice Department and the right-wing media is following right along, while the GOP either plays along or turns a blind eye.

Trump is completely engulfed in corruption. His campaign manager was corrupt, his National Security Adviser was corrupt, his personal attorney was corrupt. His son had meetings with multiple agents of foreign governments in an attempt to get dirt on his political opponent. One of those meetings resulted in multiple misleading statements by the Trump admin. on what the meeting was. There is no witch hunt. There is a sphere of corruption surround Trump and those layers are being peeled off by law enforcement.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Juicedtruth, you are blind about the truth here. Or you just do not want to see anything except for your hoped for and imagined prosecution of President Trump. It is pretty pathetic on your part when you equate an individuals right to defend themselves with a "full assault" on the media, or anything else. The media has not been shown to errantly make claims? Members of the media have not resigned or have been demoted for publishing stories that were not substantiated? And just to set the record straight: President Trump, President Trump is not trying to discredit anyone. If in the process of defending himself, those who falsely accuse him of wrongdoing have their credibility shattered, then that is on them and not the President's fault. If you enter a contest and lose, it is usually not the fault of the contest that you lost, but rather it was the fault of your efforts that resulted in you losing. If the media do not like being wrong, or being exposed for the way they do their job, then they should look to a new job where that is not a possibility.

President Trump is not "engulfed in corruption." You, however, do not and will not see it any other way. The firing of Comey, the firing of McCabe, the demotions, reassignments, and retirements of people involved in this investigation from the FBI means what to you? The corruption here is coming from the FBI, not President Trump.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

MIchaels, you clearly are living in Trump's fantasy world.

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

[Mrtazeman]

Lets not forget that the FBI announced that they are investigating Hillary when she was in the lead just before voting day while the FBI kept investigating Trump a secret until after after the elections.

[JuicedTruth]

There is no real connection between the FBI systematically working with Dems to stop Trump. There is not even a narrative to follow because it's clear the FBI's actions helped Trump far more than they helped Hillary.

The only narrative you see is the one from Trump and Trump sycophants who want to attach themselves to idiotic conspiracy theories.

I can guarantee you this -- if Hillary were elected and numerous people involved at high levels of her campaign or cabinet came under indictment and/or pleaded guilty to crimes -- it would not be called a witch hunt, fake news, and so on. There is ZERO honesty from Trump and his supporters.

[leftyg]

[Mrtazeman]

Michaels153 and BLM have something in common, they both want to go after corrupt law enforcement..

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[quote="JuicedTruth"]There is no real connection between the FBI systematically working with Dems to stop Trump.

There is a real connection here with the FBI and the Dems to stop Trump. The only angle you could argue would be that it was basically just some Rogue agents and not the entire FBI working with the Democrats to stop Trump.

JuicedTruth: "There is not even a narrative to follow because it's clear the FBI's actions helped Trump far more than they helped Hillary. "

There is a narrative to follow here.
A lot of it has been posted in this thread already. Some more details appeared at the IG report hearing, and some details you do have to extrapolate from that which has been presented thus far. I have been tempted to outline these connections in a narrative form, and maybe over the weekend, I will. But it seems that you have been unwilling to accept the very basis of this thread while you still wait in hope, and want to believe in the Russia Trump collusion allegation

JuicedTruth continues: "The only narrative you see is the one from Trump and Trump sycophants who want to attach themselves to idiotic conspiracy theories."

No. The narrative here has been presented by journalists, and Congress doing their jobs. You have gone from giving me credit for defending my positions to calling me a Trump sycophant espousing conspiracy theories. It seems like you have changed in your attitude towards me on this. Could it be that because this investigation has gone south, and more FBI agents than Presidential associates have come under the ax, that you are just frustrated?

JuicedTruth: "I can guarantee you this"

No you can't. You can't guarantee me that. Hilary has not stopped blaming everybody for her losing the elections. Considering everything she has done so far, there is no limit as to what she would do or say if she had an audience.
And considering all the moaning, whining, and wailing that has transpired since the election, including this farce about the Russia and President Trump collusion, there is nothing that Hilary's supporters, and the Democrats in general, would not do or say including calling any future indictments against Hilary as the witch hunt with news as to how much of a fake she has been.

[Michaels153]

IG Report Highlights FBI Counterspy Failings
Counterintelligence division under fire for mishandling Clinton email probe
By Bill Gertz. June 21, 2018

{ } - Here is another link between the FBI helping Democrat - Hilary, and...?Mr. Coleman said Mr. Strzok was picked to lead the email probe because he was "one of the most experienced and highly-regarded counterintelligence investigators within the FBI."

The email probe included an undisclosed number of FBI counterintelligence agents and intelligence analysts, and during the email probe Mr. Coleman was replaced by E.W. "Bill" Priestap as head of counterintelligence.

Further evidence of politicization of the email took place after Andrew McCabe became deputy FBI director in early 2016. Mr. McCabe assigned Page, an FBI lawyer who was having an affair with Strzok, to be the deputy director's personal liaison to the email probe.

Mr. McCabe was fired by President Trump earlier this year, and the IG report raised questions about his impartiality in the Clinton email probe based on his wife receiving $675,288 from Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe in 2015 to run for office in Virginia.



"Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or [FBI executive Michael] Steinbach’s knowledge," the IG report said.

The IG also said in internal FBI report criticized the Midyear probe and stated that FBI's Criminal Division should have conducted the probe as criminal rather than let the counterintelligence section handle it. This should have been a criminal probe from the beginning because actual crimes had been committed.

On Capitol Hill Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, questioned the FBI's counterspy competence in the case.

"The FBI's top counterintelligence official was unaware of possible evidence indicating Mrs. Clinton's private email server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation," Goodlatte said.

Weakened U.S. counterintelligence
Critics have said U.S. counterintelligence was weakened during the Obama administration. One example was the mishandling of the arrest of 10 Russian illegal spies in New York in 2010.

Instead of charging the deep cover "illegal" spies with espionage – they did not enjoy the usual diplomatic immunity afforded to legal spies – the 10 Russians posing as Americans were sent back to Moscow without being fully interrogated.

As a result, valuable intelligence on Russian spying operations was lost.

The Obama administration at the time was seeking to curry favor with Russia as part of the failed reset policy toward Moscow.

The administration also failed to take action against Russian intelligence during its operations to interfere with the 2016 election. After the election, a group of Russian intelligence officers was expelled.

In contrast, during the Cold War, FBI counterspies achieved a major intelligence coup by recruiting as an informant the No. 2 official in the Communist Party USA, Morris Childs, who provided Kremlin and other valuable secrets between 1958 and 1982.

Michael Waller, an intelligence expert with the Center for Security Policy, said the IG report lays bare what some have been saying for decades: "The United States is the No. 1 target of every hostile intelligence service on earth."

"With few exceptions, the FBI has very little to show that it has the strategy and leadership to cut off much more than the low-hanging fruit," Waller said.

"It’s time to reorganize the whole FBI, retire a lot of the upper dead wood and fast-track the aggressive and capable younger field agents who think strategically and put the nation ahead of their careers," he added. "That will help give the FBI the new leadership the country so desperately needs it to have."

The IG report quoted Comey as concluding well before the email probe was ended that Ms. Clinton used the private email to discuss Top Secret information eight times and Secret data dozens of times. ( That is 20 security breaches) However Mr. Comey asserted that "there was no indication" Ms. Clinton knew sending the information was illegal, or that she intended to do so. Ms. Clinton was briefed about security classifications of material. She is also a lawyer, and the law does not prosecute breaches of security based on intent. It prosecutes breaches of security.He described it as a "fairly typical spill" of information.

Comey also told the IG that the same counterspies assigned to the email probe were working on the Russia probe and as a result were "overwhelmed."

"It was Russia, Russia, Russia all the time," Comey was quoted as saying, noting that he should have assigned "another Strzok" to the two investigations or even two separate teams of counterspies.

The IG questioned the assignment of Midyear probe members to the Russia investigation. A little bit of extrapolation is needed year.

"We were surprised to learn that FBI leadership decided to assign many of the key members of the Midyear team, immediately after determining that no charges should be brought against then-candidate Clinton, to the Russia investigation, which touched upon the campaign of then candidate Trump," the IG said in a footnote.

"This is particularly so given the questions being raised by candidate Trump and his supporters regarding the declination decision in the Midyear investigation. While we recognize that staffing decisions are for management to make, we question the judgment of assigning agents who had just determined that one candidate running in an election should not be prosecuted to an investigation that relates to the campaign of the other candidate in the election."

Strzok's text message "exacerbated" the concerns, the report said.

"Surely, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division had talented agents who were not involved in the Midyear investigation who could have fully staffed the Russia investigation," the report said.

"Such a decision also would have eliminated the excuse we were given here about the Russia investigation impacting the ability of agents to address the Weiner laptop issue."

The report noted Strzok's "hostility for then candidate Trump and preference for a Clinton victory" in the text messages to Page.

Of particular concern was the Aug. 8, 2016 text from Strzok who told Page "we'll stop" Trump from being elected. And from this, JuicedTruth condludes that the FBI's actions helped Trump far more than they helped Hilary. Hilary should be serving time for what she did as others have for what she did. The FBI concluded that she did nothing wrong even though by the letter of the law she did violate law. She is left alone, while President Trump, is being investigated as if he did commit a crime, and is constantly being pursued to push him into a crime, any crime, by Mr. Mueller.

Communications from two other FBI counterintelligence agents, described in the report as Agent 1 and Agent 5, also raise concerns.

At one point after Comey sent the Oct. 28, 2016 letter to Congress reopening the Clinton email probe, Agent 1 told Agent 5 "Not sure if Trump or fifth floor is worse." The agent said the fifth floor was a reference to the Washington field office counterintelligence leaders.

Agent 1 was described as one of two agents who conducted the questioning of Clinton on July 2 that the IG said was tainted by the inclusion of two Clinton aides who were also witnesses in the email probe. Basic police work isolates witnesses from overhearing one being questioned. But the FBI allowed this to happen. Here is another FBI to Democrat link, that helped not just Hilary here.

Agent 5 was described as an experienced counterintelligence agent who worked on a "filter team" to identify privileged communications among seized FBI documents to make sure the material was not reviewed by investigators.

An FBI spokeswoman referred questions to the IG report's section containing the FBI response.

The FBI response included a single reference to counterintelligence. An FBI working group has been set up to examine whether in the future "it would be beneficial to team agents from different components and backgrounds to leverage respective skill sets and experiences, e.g., drawing on the experience of public corruption agents when conducting counterintelligence investigations.""[/quote]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

If the right-wingers were half as concerned about what's actually happening in the investigation as it relates to Trump, his associates, and the numerous indictments and pleas as they are of accusing anyone involved in the actual investigative work of bias, bad behavior, etc., I'd actually listen to them

[JuicedTruth]

Witch hunt! No Collusion!

[leftyg]

JT where are the righties and their defense? I hear crickets.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

The simple fact is that the FISA warrants were signed by four different Republican appointees undermines much of what you say.
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/judges ... residents/

And the fact that the surveillance of Page continued after he left the Trump campaign further undermines the notion that this was a political hit job.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 453cac8671

And Page had been a subject of interest since 2013, long before his work with the Trump campaign. https://www.newsday.com/long-island/pol ... 1.20051432

So painting this on the Steel Dossier is a bit much. There is a lot more going on here than what Laura Hollis is willing to admit.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Why is Rudy going on TV now saying?

1) Collusion isn't a crime (where previously it was "No Collusion!")

2) Trump didn't attend Russian meeting in Trump Tower (where previously it was Trump didn't know about it -- which Cohen started claiming recently that Trump was told about it)

Neither seem like great moves to me and indicate further progression of both investigations and/or information becoming public. Point #1 is incredibly bizarre. Point #2 seems pointless since it was Cohen's word against Trump's word, unless there is now more evidence that Trump was aware of the meeting.

[Michaels153]

I couldn't figure this one out either.
A) We already know that collusion is not written in the statutes as a crime, so why repeat it?
B) And as Rush and others have stated, when you have been saying all along that President Trump did not collude with Russia, to now say collusion isn't a crime is confusing at best, or perhaps it was meant to try to
stop the media from it's nonstop barrage in this area? Perhaps if the media either recognize or admitted the truth about collusion and the law they would seek a different smear method. I don't know and frankly
when it comes to this media, it doesn't matter. When this probe/investigation is over and nothing comes of it, the mainstream media will find something else to bash this president about. But you did figure out why the media was being used during the election campaign. So maybe you can figure this one out too.

This isn't the first time I questioned Rudy's comments. i can't tell if he actually has some strategy or if he is just reactionary. I don't have any advice for him. It does seem though that going on a friendly talk show or media format is perhaps necessary. He can't expect the mainstream media to give him an opportunity to respond to every smear when they are trying to destroy President Trump. (why present the other side when your trying to convince your base and the president's supporters that he is X? ) So going on a friendly talk show allows him to discuss the last smear episode and perhaps speculate on what the next smear tactic will be in the upcoming week.

[JuicedTruth]

The real question for you, Michaels, is if Mueller does produce a strong case and evidence that the Trump campaign actively worked with Russia to hurt Clinton and help Trump, and Trump himself was a knowing and willing participant, would you views of Trump change at all?

[Michaels153]

Of course they would change. And if it turns out that President Trump is innocent of all of these allegations, would your view of President Trump
Change?

[JuicedTruth]

Well, I wouldn't think he actively colluded with Russia.

He'd still be a person who lies to the U.S. on a daily basis, takes no responsibility for his failures, is not remotely a role model, and still runs an extremely flimsy operation in both the White House and his campaign, which, even if he didn't get involved in, still had far too many questionable ties to Russia.

[Michaels153]

Exactly what i would expect to hear from you.

[JuicedTruth]

It should be expected. Being exonerated of no knowledge or direct interactions with Russia to help him win would certainly make Trump look better but he has many, many other faults and shortcomings.

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

I don't think he's a good man. I don't think he really cares that much about helping people. I think he's primarily driven by his own ego. His only desire to see success is so that he can be recognized for it.

His latest idiotic criticism of Lebron James for being "dumb" are a prime example of what a shitty person he is. On a week where Lebron opened a new public school for children seriously at-risk of failing, where students stay in school most of the day and most of the year, in a structured environment where they are fed and cared for. A school where each student who graduates is guaranteed tuition at the University of Akron, where there is no cost to the parents or students. The week he does that, the president calls him stupid, because Lebron referred to Trump as divisive. Trump is a thin-skinned ego-maniac, who readily takes advantage of people and situations.

And NONE of that has anything to do with Russia, which is why I'd still find him "deplorable" even if he's completely exonerated by Mueller.

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Lebron referred to Trump as being divisive. That's not exactly a leap, nor is it an insult to Trump -- it's a critisim. Trump responded without an idiotic and baseless insult, because that's just type of person he is (bad hombre!)

Also, wage growth is not very strong. It's actually slowed from Obama to Trump's tenure. It's a big reason why the GOP isn't focusing on their tax plan in the mid-terms, they simply haven't helped most people, save for a one-off bonus that wasn't that meaningful. Unemployment is down, which is great, but there is also a lot of inflation happening, especially in the housing market, and wages aren't keeping pace. If price growth outpaces wage growth, you're decreasing buying power. That's not a good, even if you can point to positive metrics, buying power is a reality for everyone in the economy, unlike unemployment, so it's impact is felt across the board.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Two years ago Sean Hannity was identified as an adviser to Donald Trump. Any number of articles will confirm that https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf- ... 533_052918 And not much has changed since 2016. It is a violation of journalistic ethics to do something like that. Keith Olbermann was suspended at MSNBC for just giving a political donation to Gabby Giffords http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/rep ... donations/ https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/ ... ons-044734 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ke ... ns-6652349

Hannity has clearly crossed the line between journalism and the people journalists are supposed to cover, and here it does not matter that he is a commentator. He has become part of the news.

As to Adam Schiff: I listened to the tape of the conversation on You Tube https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... ald-trump/ and Schiff merely listened to the alleged Russian informant. He said he would give all the information to his House committee and to the FBI which is appropriate. He himself offered nothing to the spoofer. He merely listened and tried to pick up information.

Compare that with what Ian Murphy did to Scott Walker in a very famous 2011 spoof that revealed a lot. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/ ... 27058.html Murphy posed as David Koch of the Koch brothers, and Walker spilled the beans on everything he was doing to this rich donor he suppossed Murphy to be, his plan to layoff thousands of workers to make a political point, his political dealings with Democrats, his feelings about paid protesters (he thinks they are legal) and his attempts to sow divisions between private and public workers. He said things he should not have said to this person who went public with it. But, or course, Republicans did not mind.

Notice also that it is Walker doing almost all the talking and spilling all the beans, telling this faux Koch brother everything that is on his mind; conversely it was the Russian informant that did all the talking in the Schiff "spoof."

Now Michaels, I took the time to listen to the spoof even though you did not provide a link. You should do me the courtesy of listening to the entire Walker spoof and tell me you cannot see the difference.

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"]Two years ago Sean Hannity was identified as an adviser to Donald Trump. There is nothing illegal nor unseemly regarding this. Both public and private or semi[- private media such as facebook pages and youtube broadcasts have people calling on their public leaders to do this or that. You have Sunday talk shows discussing the weekly events and world affairs and stating what they feel X should do about this or that. I don't think any of this is wrong, nor damaging.Any number of articles will confirm that https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf- ... 533_052918 And not much has changed since 2016. It is a violation of journalistic ethics to do something like that. I don't understand this and would have to look into it further. Maybe news stations have a code of conduct that does not allow anyone and not just on the air personalities to give donations. That I don't know either. Keith Olbermann was suspended at MSNBC for just giving a political donation to Gabby Giffords http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/rep ... donations/ https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/ ... ons-044734 https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ke ... ns-6652349

Hannity has clearly crossed the line between journalism and the people journalists are supposed to cover,Sorry, I don't see it and don't agree with it. I remember Ed being upset with Billy Graham about something he said and I responded the same way. What is the point of having freedom of speech if you can't exercise it without somebody trying to restrict or deny you from using it? and here it does not matter that he is a commentator. He has become part of the news." [/color]

As to Adam Schiff: I listened to the tape of the conversation on You Tube https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... ald-trump/ and Schiff merely listened to the alleged Russian informant. He said he would give all the information to his House committee and to the FBI which is appropriate. He himself offered nothing to the spoofer. He merely listened and tried to pick up information. You are correct about that. Mr. Schiff did say all that, and though I don't have a problem with this, that is not the point that Mr. Hannity was making. Look, both Mr. Schiff and Mr. Walker got punked. Mr. Schiff believed he was talking to a Russian and it did not seem like he thought there was anything wrong with that. Mr. Walker's conversation was different in that he believed that he was talking to somebody he wasn't talking to due to the editor impersonating a Kock brother. Now I had to look this up because I thought there was something illegal about this. I guess you can impersonate people except for a policeman or a lawyer. But beyond that, is what takes place while you impersonate someone that is often illegal. In Mr. Walker's phone conversation he was talking to the Press. And when the Press gather's to ask questions and place microphones and cameras up close the person sometimes says: No comment. don't they. But do people say: "No comment." in conversations with people over the phone? No, or at least not that I am aware of. They may do it if they know the conversation is with the media, but that was not the case in this conversation. Now, since I believe I am pretty aware of Mr. Walkers' positions on many issues, I did not read of him straying from any of his positions, although he could have.
I have to agree with the representative that said that this conversation reveals that Mr. Walker speaks the same on political issues publicly as he does in private. Now it is illegal to tape record someone without their knowledge and consent to do so. The impersonating editor did not do that. In a public meeting, or in a private interview, a person may tell a reporter or an interviewer that he or she will not say anything more about X on the record but he or she may be willing to discuss the topic further off the record, or after the interview. What I believe was illegal here was the editor failed to inform Mr. Walker who he was, and did not get Mr. Walker's consent to publish their conversation. (He could have done this at the end of the phone call)
The transcripts brought back the memory of the Democrats stunt of trying to hold up the state government because they did not like what was going on. The phone conversation that Mr. Walker shared about his thoughts on a strategy to deal with this was not as you put it "spilling the beans." Democrats have pulled this stunt before, but Mr. Walker may not have been aware of all the legalities involved (as I admit that I wasn't aware of all of these legalities.) And then there was the comment of his housekeeper? Now facebook was sued for improperly revealing personal information, so I wonder if Mr. Walker considered that option here. And the Republicans did mind the way Mr. Walker was treated after he was elected. He was treated much in the same manner that President Trump has been treated since he was legally elected by the people to be the President of the United Sates.

Notice also that it is Walker doing almost all the talking and spilling all the beans, telling this faux Koch brother everything that is on his mind; conversely it was the Russian informant that did all the talking in the Schiff "spoof." It does not matter who is doing most of the talking in either conversation. The point behind both conversations is the legal questions they raise.

Leftyg, I did take the time to listen to the spoof and I am glad I did. I furnished you a link to the Daily Caller which had a video embedded in it that I could not separately link to. What is fair is fair. As you can tell, I did go to your links and commented on what you provided as you did to my link. I have shared what I think are the differences to the two conversations.,

[leftyg]

As to your assertion that it is not illegal to be a presidential adviser when you re a talk show host, I do not know. But it is unethical and it certainly leaves you open to charges of bias. As you have probably noticed it takes a lot more to get you fired at Fox than it does at MSNBC. MSNBC has fired and suspended so many hosts for things they either said or tweeted that it is hard to keep track. Meanwhile Fox has stuck by hosts who have gotten caught red-handed doing bad stuff. They are only fired if the network thinks it has to, like with Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly and most recently, Kimberly Guillfoyle. All were gone while under extreme pressure.

That is because MSNBC was founded as a news organization. Fox was founded by Roger Ailes who was both a newsman and political operative. His job was to marry the two together, and sees no problem with it. It is kind of like a Protestant minister having a wife, but a priest not being able to. So maybe that explains it. But it also explains why Fox so slavishly defends President Trump. I have no doubt that were this situation with Trump to have happened before the advent of partisan splintered cable news, Trump would already be gone. I do not think the Bob Frantz's and Rush Limbaugh's alone would be able to keep him afloat. There is just too much lying and too many shenanigans going on.

About Mr. Schiff: I think I can say certainly, the spoofer talked way more than Schiff. Schiff gave him nothing, and a simple content analysis would demonstrate that.

Meanwhile, Walker was talking up a storm, telling the Faux David Koch everything. I do not think he would want to know that he laid off or was planning to lay off several thousand workers as a political ploy; you cannot mix politics with the operation of a state, at least you are not supposed to say it to somebody who is taping you. I am going to put up one of my favorite little Scott Walker bits: it is the one where he talks to Diane Hendrick and tells her how he is going to divide and conquer all labor unions by pitting them against each other. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sc ... ORM=VRDGAR I think it is wrong for government to be run by business interests

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

All those Obama people getting indicted and pleading guilty

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Good Lord Michaels. Mueller will find what he finds, and he will prosecute accordingly. This speculation is nonsense. This is the score card: 35 indictments of Russians and people involved with the Trump campaign, 0 for the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Demonstrators protesting abortion loudly is unbecoming in a senate chamber, but it cannot be compared to a state legislator going whacko at college students for their views http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... at-college There is crazy on both sides of this issue. And when was the last time an pro-choice advocate killed a pro-life nun or advocate or a doctor that refused to do abortions?

But that does not address the question of why our investigations of your bad guys are so fruitful even when all three branches of government are ruled by the right and your investigations of our folks, but particularly Hillary, always come up snake eyes even when the dice are loaded in your favor?

BTW it was refreshing to hear a real president talk yesterday instead of an ignorant ass.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

The state senator? What qualifications are you imposing on freedom of speech? And i have no room to talk here? There is no assumption here that abortion is murder. It is. Go pick your favorite Christian speaker for this month and report back to us of your findings. Of all the posts that i have made here on abortion, including the obvious that it is murder, and you say i am intellectually lazy?
Well thanks for dropping by and spewing your filth.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Gregg Re Catherine Herridge

[quotes raise “grave concerns” about an “apparent systemic culture of media leaking” among high-level FBI and Justice Department officials to release information damaging to President Trump, a top Republican congressman charged in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Monday.

In the letter, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., points in particular to two text message exchanges in April 2017 between now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page, in which the two discuss the bureau's "media leak strategy."

according to Meadows, who cited newly produced documents from the Justice Department.


Two days later,whom the FBI surveilled for months after obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

[/quote]

Fox News also reached out to lawyers for Strzok and Page; they did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

On April 11, 2017, the Washington Post published a story titled, "FBI obtained a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page. The article, citing "law enforcement and other U.S. officials," reported that the DOJ and FBI had convinced a FISA judge there was "probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case, Russia."

The obvious, that this probe has been a hoax from the start, continues to be revealed for just that. With the help of some people in the DOJ and the FBI. President Trump and his campaign will eventually be exonerated from the scurrilous allegations leveled at them and the real criminals will be exposed and prosecuted by the very same agencies they sought to employ as a weapon against President Trump.

Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Heavily redacted documents have since shown that a dossier written by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign played a key role in obtaining the FISA warrant to surveil him beginning in October 2016.
Strzok, who was a leading investigator in both the Hillary Clinton and Russia probes, was fired in August after the DOJ inspector general excoriated him for a slew of anti-Trump text messages he sent on his FBI-issued phone, including one in which he said "we'll stop" Trump from becoming president.

Documents also have shown that the FBI inaccurately reassured the FISA court No, the FBI LIED to the FISA COURTon several instances that a Yahoo News article provided an independent basis to surveil Page, when in fact it also relied on Steele as its source.

In his letter, Meadows noted that the Post's reporting "[set] off a flurry of articles suggesting connections between President Trump and Russia."

The leaks involved other outlets in addition to the Washington Post, Meadows wrote. FBI and DOJ officials, including DOJ prosecutor and top Robert Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann, (You can learn a lot about Mr. Weissmann in the book: "Licensed to Lie" By Sidney Powell. You will find how he abused the law in his work on prosecuting the Enron case.) met with several Associated Press reporters in April 2017, according to court filings in the Virginia federal trial of Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The leaks to the media continued even as FBI attorneys cited the U.S. Attorney's Manual in telling Congress that witnesses could not answer questions about pending probes, Meadows wrote.

There is "troubling evidence" that the FBI and DOJ continue to coordinate leaks to the media, Meadows said. While those disclosures may not be unauthorized, he added, they still compromise the appearance of impartiality at the bureau.

Meadows concluded by requesting written communications from FBI and DOJ officials, including Stu Evans, Mike Kortan and Joe Pientka, from June 2016 to June 2017, although he emphasized that he was not suggested they engaged in wrongdoing.

Congressional sources tell Fox News they expect President Trump will soon agree to a longstanding request by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to declassify more documents used to justify Page's surveillance, as well as activities by embattled DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr.

Ohr had contact in 2016 with Weissmann, then his colleague, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it, two sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Congressional Republicans are still trying to get to the bottom of Ohr's role in circulating the unverified Steele dossier. A Republican-authored House Intelligence Committee memo released in February said that Steele "maintained contact" with Ohr "before and after" the government fired the British ex-spy as a source.

But Republicans have said the FBI failed to disclose to the FISA court not only the funding sources for Steele dossier, but also Ohr’s involvement and the fact that his wife, Nellie, had worked on Russia issues for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the dossier.

[JuicedTruth]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
In your recent failure to support your faux claim of political relativity, here are some recent headlines:
1) Suspect tries stabbing Republican candidate with switchblade
2) Mass Shooting tweet threatens Trump Hotel event
3) Secret Service probes actress calling for assassination.
4) Conservative columnist goes into hiding after Rape, Death threats.
5) Wyoming GOP office set on Fire less than 2 days after opening. Police say it was intentional.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Leftyg, I am not going to attach links to the headlines. You want to read up on them then look it up yourself.
Your links, - are typical, a reliance upon corrolary data that does not support what you posit about President Trump inciting violence. I could make a convincing argument that Ms. Pelosi has done more to incite violence than President Trump, but I am not interested in doing that either.
You probably did not care about the numerous examples in your links that identified Anti-Trumpers assaulting President Trump supporters, nor about the protester who tried to steal a police officer's weapon to (as he stated, he wanted to shoot the candidate.) No, just find any headline that includes the President's name and the word violence and that is sufficient for you.
And just a reminder for your Liberal point of view. It still is politically incorrect to refer to someone who is an adult as "boy."

[Michaels153]

The most vetted POTUS ever.jpg (57.45 KiB) Viewed 679024 times

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, if yo had a brain in your head, you would have looked at Shep Smith's peice and how well sourced it was. These are all facts, and Uranium one is a joke and so is Sidney Powell.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg, your an ass. It does not matter how well sourced or documented a article is if it is inaccurate. Shep Smith made comments eleven months ago. Ms. Powell's article
came early last week. We understand that cognitive dissonance regarding your love fest with Democrats makes it impossible to view contrary information objectively, but like your liberal organization, - move on. Get over it.
The Uranium One deal has never been one that I have focused on before with Hilary. Hilary has broken so many laws that if she never was prosecuted for one crime, she should still be serving time in prison for the others. But your so blinded by your own cognitive dissonance, and blind partisanship, you had to ask what crimes that she committed, and I showed you some of them. I showed you some of them not being a lawyer because Hilary's law breaking is so well known and documented in many sources. But you say Ms. Powell is confused. And you say you know that based on your years of experience prosecuting cases in court, and because, as you said; in all her claims there was not a lick of evidence."
Ms. Powell has written an article declaring the Mueller probe is all but over. In her and other's wording; "the jig is up." I will follow up on this later, but in this article you chose to focus on Uranium One. You really had no point to make in doing that. And you failed to understand what she was saying due to not remembering what had already been posted here on the Comey - Mueller court tandem. Add that to your lack of insight applying that information to her article, and you conclude that she is confused.

[leftyg]

The fact the Powell's article came last week demonstrates my point. We have know for a year that Uranium One was a dud. Shep Smith did impeccable research that you have not addressed. It is a right wing talking point and lie or not you will believe it.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

This nonsense from the party that hounded Hillary Clinton over the faux Benghazi problem:10 committees, no indictments, is hysterical. And let's not forget the emails. Let's see what Mueller has because we do not know what Mueller has. Unlike Trump and many of his now departed lackeys in the House, Mueller is soldier and a professional with a tight upper lip and he tells no tells. Unlike his critics, he is a soldier with some discipline.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

The assumption that Mueller has nothing is silly. The truth is you not know, nor does anyone else outside his tight-lipped team know, what this investigation has. They are not like Trump and his team, running off at the mouth continually.

You can dress knowing nothing up in all the overblown words you want; it still amounts to nothing. We will see what we will l see. The people who oppose you are much more convincing.

Having said that, I hope this fool stays in office. He is a serial liar and a fraud of the highest order. Just as long as he does not blow up the world.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[quote = Leftyg] How deductive reasoning factors into mind reading escapes me. I can see that the obvious flaws to the Mueller Probe escape you. It is not mind reading.
People do not need to know anything more than to know what Rosentein said Rosenstein said, "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.] You do not know what Mueller has period. Again, people do not have to know anything else about Mueller even if you want to leave out what Mr. Rosenstein said.There were articles written by people who interviewed election officials and found no votes changed anywhere, in any state. Now you take all of these sources together with what Rosenstein said, and you (well not you, because you had to ask how deductive reasoning fit in here, and wrongly attributed it to mind reading) But most people, will be able to deduce from the statements made by the election officials and Rosenstein that nothing outside of the election affected the votes in the election.and to pretend that you do only makes your position more intellectually bankrupt. So since I am not pretending anything here my position is not as you would like it to be. My position is not intellectually bankrupt. And it is not just my position. It is your position that is indefensible. You have nothing. And that is because there is nothing here but allegations hoping for any other reason that President Trump defeated Clinton in the election. We only have, as spectators, the option of watching it unfold. And yesterday we found that Trump had been pining over a tower in Moscow, going so far as to offer a 50 million dollar gift of a penthouse apartment to Vladimir Putin as an inducement to other Russian oligarchs to buy in to the Trump Moscow tower. We find that the idea was still on the drawing boards, even after Trump's denial during the election, during the election! Repeatedly, Trump has said that he has no financial involvement with Russia or Saudi Arabia only to have video recordings of Trump bragging about his financial dealings with Russia and Saudi Arabia. https://www.bing.com/videos/search? Leftyg, from what I know of President Trump, he has long wanted to invest in some things in Russia that have never happened. Offering inducements to land a business deal is nothing new. But you would like to spin this into being the illusion of collusion. And there is no crime that has been committed here. That is why the Democrats want to try to move from collusion to conspiracy, but again, there is no evidence of a conspiracy (At least no evidence of conspiracy from President Trump.
while a case can be made for conspiracy by the democrats.
q=Trump+brags+about+his+deals+with+Russia+and+Saudi+Arabia&&view=detail&mid=D486ED69300D8ECDDB08D486ED69300D8ECDDB08&&FORM=VRDGAR https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Tr ... ORM=VRDGAR And there are the tax returns that he will not make available to the public which are damning. The cloud of emoluments violations surrounds Trump No the emolument violation is just more wishful dreaming by the ignorant.

Michaels, virtually every pundit I listen to says the iron is hot and Trump is in deep water. Then you have good reason to stop listening to them and listen to the people that I have posted here. It is obvious to all but the blind that Trump is dirty. He is definitely stupid for bringing in his family to the administration as his daughter's email difficulties (remember Trump's rage over Hillary's emails) represent. Keeping his businesses and having his family working in the White House are all dangerous and raise the specter of a conflict of interest. When you take your blinders off, you wont see that President Trump is as you want to believe "dirty." You have been quick to judge many people, and from my memory, you have been wrong when you did this. There is nothing wrong with his family helping him. Only people like you, who want to see anything that President Trump does as wrong, will find fault with President Trump's family helping him.

Stormy Daniels and the Playboy model are scandals that do not come from Mueller. But he involved himself in that before passing it off.Others are looking into these cases. Trump is in trouble on many fronts. President Trump is not in trouble. And he is strong enough to handle the Left's never ending campaign against him. I think the emoluments stuff is the most dangerous for him. And why did Paul Manafort lie to the Mueller team? I don't know what Paul Manafort said, nor what Mueller said to him. But in Mueller's effort to get President Trump, I can imagine how Mueller and Mueller's team could grill Manafort with a process crime and threaten to prosecute him to the fullest extent that he can, and try to squeeze him to say whatever he (Mueller) wanted Manafort to say. Mueller and his team have done this before. Why lie? There are reasons that a person might lie besides just to save himself if he was indeed guilty of something. Then again there have been people who spent years in prison who were realeased after finding them not guilty of something they had always said they were not guilty of. And that is what bothers me the most here. I don't believe that anybody in Mr. Trump's campaign did anything wrong, so all this effort by Mueller and his team to throw people in jail, or threaten people with jail is despicable. Again, look up Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice by Sidney Powell.
and why go to Trumps attorney's with information about the Mueller investigation? Why not? Manafort should expose everything that Mueller is doing or at least trying to do just as Carter Page should. This is very troubling; the only thing more troubling is your misspent loyalty to a guy like Trump and that of other members of his base.[/quote] Of course that troubles you. But your not troubled by me showing loyalty to President Trump, your troubled by something a lot more basic than that. Who knows, maybe someday you will get it. But it wont be today.

[Michaels153]

Since the drive by media resort to rehashing old allegations when Mueller is not leaking anything to them (especially those not so anonymous
anonymous leaks), this rebuttal by Mark Levin is both timely and fitting./color]

There is so much speculation about this witch hunt that I am not going to give it any legitimacy by addressing it. I am so looking forward to the White house Response to Mueller's crap and I wish I could work with the White House on it. I would include the response to this farce by the Drive by media and all the evidence that I could show of their participation in this.

[color=#FF0000]Rush Limbaugh recently commented how Hillary Paid for Steele Dossier, We’re Paying for Mueller Dossier 12/7/18 show, He also commented on what is felt by some to (now that everything is falling apart for the Democrats).... what the original purpose of this investigation was to do, and that is to reign in Trump.

he Deep State’s Original Purpose Was to Rein In Trump
Dec 7, 2018
see the following link as well:

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Oh, Really: Democratic Operatives Copied Russian Deception Tactics In Alabama Senate Race
By Matt Vespa - Posted: Dec 21, 2018 1:35 PM

[quote]Oh, so while the Left is going insane over Russian interference during the 2016 elections, they also decided to allegedly copy their deceptive social media practices during a special election in Alabama. ...
t’s one thing to point out that Russia interference bad....t’s a completely other thing to say Russian interference is the worst attack since Pearl Harbor, Trump caused it, but also let’s totally copy what they did so we can screw over Republicans in the future. This was a possible test run. So, once again, Democrats show they’re the cancers to this country. And if there were no double standards, Democrats wouldn’t have any.
UPDATE: Oh, Democrats might have tried this same crap in North Dakota? ... Back to the New York Times report, if Democrats were dabbling in these tactics in Alabama, could this ad in North Dakota have been part of the same effort?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

You do realize that all of this palaver about "other people doing it too is a logical fallacy.* It is only important now what the president did, the millions of dollars in his slush fund, especially from the inauguration fund https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/p ... ation.html This is very different and special because the inauguration fund includes money that might be from foreign actors. So this is very different.

You see besides being a logical fallacy, the definition of which I give below** it does not address the question how much of whatever slush fund rhere was came from foreign actors, especially Russians. And are you familiar with the emoluments clause? Nothing Limbaugh or Trump says in this piece of yours addresses that .

* it is called tu quoque
**You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, I did not miss the point. The point is the Russia investigation and the money paid into the inauguration, possibly from Russians. I know all about the flush fund to payoff congressional indiscretions. But this thread is about Trump and Russia and what the FBI has found.

At MSNBC I have heard all about the fund to cover up and hush this stuff. They do not try to cover it up. This thread is about meddling in the election, not congressional slush funds. Your post was an effort at a red herring, and it is called tu quoque. I gave you a source and a definition. If you can explain to me how a congressional slush fund absolves President Trump of anything here with Russia, I wold like to hear it. And President Trump smears himself quite enough without my help.

And Hillary's "illegalities" were so well documented that she survived ten investigations of Benghazi and scrutiny of her email and an admission that no damning evidence had been found Hillary was exonerating in this exchange https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609850/ ... ied-emails (listen to the first two minutes but listen to it all. There were no "confidential" emails on her server. Fact.

BUT now we are investigating Trump and the election. This is not about Hillary Clinton. We will find what we find, but palaver from Rush Limbaugh enlightens nothing when he goes off topic.

And the reason that the suit against President Trump was dismissed is because the plaintiffs could not show that they had been harmed by the action or that they had standing to file a complaint. Mueller is very different. And it is coming. I have committed no fallacy.

I would watch throwing comments like dullard around. Rush is a dullard, a community college drop out who is in sync with like minded community college drop outs and become rich because of it. I would look up Dunning-Kruger effect:The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities. it is characterized by: Overestimating their own skill levels and Failure to recognize the genuine skill and expertise of other people https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overvie ... ct-4160740

That allows you to think that Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump are smart and that Ivy League professors, scholars and people even like me are stupid. You simply lack the cognitive ability to present an actual argument, so you offer ad hominem attacks instead.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Here is Leftyg's examples of Dunning-Kruger effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Oczyk6nCw

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Manafort’s ‘mind-boggling’ 47-month sentence prompts debate over judicial system’s ‘blatant inequities’
By Reis Thebault and
Michael Brice-Saddler March 8 at 11:21 AM

Sure, the Washington Post is concerned over what they see as the judicial systems blatant sentencing inequalities - when it comes to not getting the maximum sentence they wanted for a former member of Trump's campaign staff. They didn't think there were any problems when the Justice system ignored Hillary Clinton's laundry list criminal activities.
And Herr Mueller was not to pleased by the sentence handed down by this judge. His statements seeking the maximum for Manafort should be thrown back in his face and used against him and every member of his team when his current farce is over.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Gregg Re of Fox News
[quote] Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information," the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page's closed-door testimony.

Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved, exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page's testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI's supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton's criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged.


"So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory," Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. "But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —"

Page interrupted: "That is correct," as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, " -- bring a case based on that."

The document dump was part of a major release by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, who on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump. Fox News has previously reviewed portions of Page's testimony.

Responding to the transcript revelations, Trump on Wednesday tweeted: "The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!"


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!

31.3K
8:21 AM - Mar 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
15.7K people are talking about this
Page also testified that the DOJ and FBI had "multiple conversations ... about charging gross negligence," and the DOJ decided that the term was "constitutionally vague" and "had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago," and so "they did not feel they could sustain a charge." n July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey publicly announced at a bombshell press conference that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in handling classified information, but insisted that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

SPECIAL COUNSEL PHONES ISSUED TO STRZOK AND PAGE WIPED COMPLETELY -- AND FBI BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR OTHER MISSING TEXTS

*Note - No requirement of intent.

Originally Comey accused the former secretary of state of being “grossly negligent” in handling classified information in a draft dated May 2, 2016, but that was modified to claim that Clinton had merely been “extremely careless” in a draft dated June 10, 2016.
No requirement of intent, and yet this is what Mr. Comey said:
Comey also said that "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

He added that "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges," including "the strength of the evidence,/quote]

So Mr. Mueller is sent on a fishing expedition to "look for evidence" (where no crime has been committed), but ignores evidence of an actual crime that has been committed.
Yea, I guess that pretty much clears things up.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Beth Bauman

[Michaels153]

By Greg Norman



By Caleb Parke



By Edmund DeMarche

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Matt Vespa

#1) President Trump's win in the Mueller probe.
#2) the Department of Justice said they’re siding with a court ruling from last December that struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional
#3) The U.S. Department of Defense shifted $1 billion to plan and build a 57-mile section of “pedestrian fencing”, roads and lighting along the border between the United States and Mexico, the Pentagon chief said on
Monday.
#4) a majority say they’re open to re-electing Donald J. Trump president of the United States in 2020.

[leftyg]

Michaels, I am not going to chase you down any rabbit hole. The attorney general said that the Mueller report did not exonerate the president, Period. You can dance it around any way you want. I think that Mr. Mueller was leaving the investigation to the legislative branch. My view, Trump is as guilty as Jessie Smolett; like Smolett it is hard to prove.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels I understood what Barr did, and I understand why he did it, I think. I am sure there has to be a undeniable proof that the president is guilty. I appreciate the legal language but the fact remains that like Jessie Smollet, Trump got away with it because of who he is. That is going to be in the back of voters minds and it should be. Afterall, what else would explain Trump's deference to Putin in Helsinki which undermined his own intelligence people

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes-t ... ssia-probe
!
By Greg Re

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes exclusively told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that he is preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice this week concerning alleged misconduct from "Watergate wannabes" during the Trump-Russia investigation, including the leaks of "highly classified material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

There is no place to hide. Now on to bring justice to those who were involved in this hoax.

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

April 15, 2019

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content ... ueller.jpg

Three days . . .

[Michaels153]

[/color]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

You were part of the Wacky "Lock Her Up" crowd that didn't produce any convictions, lasted for years, and was ended a couple days after Hillary lost the election (hmm). So why are you so upset about Muller's (R) investigation that lead to plenty of convictions of criminal activity..

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

And you don't find it a little odd that whenever repubs are in trouble they start digging up the Hillary story? Then u guys start running around yelling Lock her Up, Lock Her Up! Year, after Year, after Year, after Year repubs couldn't find any criminal activity yet the investigation ended a day after the election.. hmmmm

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Charles Creitz

"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday that the appointment of federal prosecutor John Durham to examine the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation is sending shockwaves through Washington.
On "The Rush Limbaugh Show," Limbaugh joked that listeners should keep an eye out for certain people "fleeing the country."
"If you see James Comey in Argentina or if you see [former Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper somewhere where they can't be extradited, then you will know that we are getting close... I'm only half-joking," he said.
"It hasn't started yet, but man, are they nervous," Limbaugh said.
Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, will conduct the inquiry, a source told Fox News Monday.
On Tuesday, a person familiar with the process told Fox News that Durham had actually been working on the endeavor "for weeks."
Limbaugh referenced the Fox News report that Durham had been working on his review for some time, remarking that "it does not surprise me."
Limbaugh chronicled Durham's work investigating the alleged use or misuse of FBI informants in the federal government's case involving organized crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger in Massachusetts.
"So, if you ask me, Barr could not have picked a man with better experience," Limbaugh opined. "Not only has Durham gone up against the FBI and won before and even Mueller, he has investigated the FBI’s use of informants, which played a larger role in the inception of the FBI’s case against the Trump campaign."
Limbaugh called Barr's decision to appoint Durham "an inspired choice."
"So, this has a lot of people very, very nervous," he said. "In addition to this, the just recently retired deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, is out making speeches, and he is unloading on James Comey."
Limbaugh discussed how Rosenstein, speaking in Maryland on Monday, slammed Comey for judging the "fate of [his] immortal soul" and told the crowd the former director is beginning to sound like a "partisan pundit."

Fox News' Gregg Re, Jake Gibson, Catherine Herridge and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.




Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to present his findings sometime in June.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Katie Pavlich

See also Robert Mueller unmasked by Congressman Louie Gohmert
https://www.hannity.com/wp-content/uplo ... MASKED.pdf

And get more popcorn

[Michaels153]

Looking forward to this. I don't think Mr. Mueller will add anything new to or from his report. Why, because he risks more trouble for himself if he does.
As Attorney General Barr and the Inspector General prepare their reports to the public; Mr. Mueller is already facing the very likely charges of prosecutorial misconduct. He does not want to add lying to Congress, nor does he want to add perjury to everything else he is facing.

[leftyg]

Cite all the right wing nuts you like Michaels. Next Wednesday Mr. Mueller will testify before congress in an open forum, and we will hear from him. AG Barr can spin, and Dershowitz can spin; all of them can spin all they want. BUT the facts will get out there. Anybody who thinks Trump is clean has to be naive. I heard him on the podium in Helsinki next to Putin throw his own intelligence under the bus and embrace a far right dictator. Anybody who believes that Trump is innocent is delusional.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Tomorrow, Congressional Democrats will be auditioning for an academy award for the show that they are about to stage.
In the back stage, Michael Moore will be checking to make sure that all of the Democrats scheduled to speak have their scripts with them and understand the cues listed at the side of each page.
Eyes wide, mean that after Mueller speaks you are to open your eyes as wide as possible. And remember to look directly into the camera so that they can get a closeup of your surprised look and expression.
BIT, means that you are to say "But I thought" and drift off in decending volume. Later, when you are asked by the reporter what you meant when you said 'But I thought" you will respond by saying "you didn't remember seeing in Mr. Mueller's report, what he just said, and it shocked me. You will then say that you immediately brought it to X's attention so they could follow up on it since you time allotment was up.
Now Cory, when Mr. Mueller replies to this question...., You are to reply with a loud Yes!, and then once the camera pans to you, you are to say: "I knew it."
And remember everybody, As soon as Mr. Mueller's testimony is finished, you are all to go up to him and thank him for coming and explaining the report. I want to see a lot of smiles out there. Remember when you are asked, that those smiles are smiles of satisfaction, and relief, knowing that the American people were finally given the opportunity to hear the truth about this president.
Adam, don't forget to hold back and stay in the hearing room for at least ten minutes. This will give our reporters time to collect their 5:00 soundbites. Just stay seated, and slowly collect your papers and put them carefully in your briefcase. When you do leave the chamber and enter into the corridor, remember that you will be asked "what do the Democrats plan to do next."
You will slightly pause before answering, and say: Well, I think that is pretty obvious, but we will all meet tomorrow and vote on how we should proceed." And then politely excuse yourself after you thank the reporter for covering this important event.

Tomorrow, Mr. Mueller will try to portray himself as the dutiful public servant. He will refer to the letter from the DOJ and make use of his own counsel.
But there are '"tricks to the trade" to drop a person's guard down, and I hope both Democrats and Republicans will be successful in doing just that.

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

There is one thing Muller made very clear, Trump would be in jail if he wasnt President. Weird how Obama had no one from his staff go to jail ..


Muller, a republican, said that the Russians will try to interfer with the elections again which is one of the biggest threat to our democracy. So what do the Republicans do? They are killing every single attempt to protect our democracy.

GOP senators block election security legislation hours after Mueller warns of Russian interference

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politi ... gle.com%2F

How much more obvious does it have to be for their flock to start to question them

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Mrtazeman]

[Mrtazeman]

Comrade Michaels just an article I found this morning

the paperless touchscreen voting machines Georgia has used since 2002 are unsecure, vulnerable to hacking and can’t be audited. It seeks statewide use of hand-marked paper ballots.

https://m.chron.com/news/us/article/Geo ... 174519.php

Why don't you want a fair election?

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Well Comrade Michaels, I didn’t except anything different from you since you don’t mind foreign countries interfering in our election process. I have to admit; you are good little foot solider for the republican party. Why are you trying to hide the fact that General Shady Flynn didn’t last that long in the Trump administration because he lied to Pence about his connections with Russia…

When you are a highly decorated general like General Shady Flynn, you don’t sell out your country just to get a few bucks from your enemy. Turkey is not a alley (he might as well taken money from Iran and do their dirty work). Turkey never let the US to go through their airspace, Turkey disclosed secret US military bases putting our troops in harms way, Erdogen imprisoned Americans including an American Pastor, Erdogen even had his Thugs beat up protestors in the US (someone like you would appreciate that since Trump offered to pay legal fees for someone to assault protestors at his rally). And to top it off, Flynn violated lobby laws failing to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.

Erdogen wants to spread radical Islamic ideology in the US and is paying General Shady Flynn to do their dirty work. Muller had nothing to do with General Shady Flynn demise, he was just doing his job. Maybe you should expect General Shady Flynn to take some accountability for his actions.

If you Don't Love America then get the hell out and move to Turkey…

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Erdogan is a brutal dictator who controls the media. US put sanctions on Turkey not bc they are their pals. It is so bizarre to me that radical right wing nuts think North Korea, Russia, and Turkey are the US allies.

You are so disconnected from there real world, if Rush the druggie Limpballs dies, no one would shed a year, just like when that prev Roger Allies died.. under his own standards, Limpballs should be in jail. A black man commiting the same crime would still be in jail

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Barr says watchdog report on Russia probe's origins is 'imminent'

By JOSH GERSTEIN, KYLE CHENEY and ABBEY MARSHALL
11/13/2019 02:41 PM EST

Attorney General William Barr confirmed on Wednesday that an internal watchdog’s report on the origins of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia during the 2016 election is “imminent.”

The highly anticipated report, led by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, seeks to establish whether the bureau violated laws and policies that govern the surveillance of American citizens.
“It’s been reported and it’s my understanding that it is imminent,” Barr said at a news conference in Memphis, Tennessee. “A number of people who were mentioned in the report are having an opportunity right now to comment on how they were quoted in the report, and after that process is over which is very short, the report will be issued. That’s what the inspector general himself suggests.
...Asked about the IG report, Page told POLITICO he was "just in the process of confirming specific details with DOJ, but I remain optimistic that this should happen imminently."

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

McCabe apologized for misleading investigators on leak, transcripts show
By Gregg Re

I have always believed in waiting for all the facts to come out as in the end of the trial before commenting on it. I encouraged patience on the Trayvon Martin incident, and was hesitant to make comments on other events as well. The Russian collusion hoax is where I came out very quickly and began expressing my thoughts on the events as they were unfolding. As everyone knows now, The Russian collusion allegations was more than a hoax it was part of a political coup to get rid of President Trump. The facts, or in most instances, the absence of facts were so glaringly transparent, that it did not need a complex analysis nor an investigation to conclude what I and others concluded long ago and were correct.
And now, some of the main actors in this scheme to take down the president, are facing the same kind of pressure that they enacted on members of President Trump and his campaign staff. And I have no sympathy for them.
Former FBI Director, Andrew McCabe has: denied any wrongdoing. But in 2018 the Inspector General concluded that Mr. McCabe "lacked candor" when speaking to then-FBI Director James Comey and DOJ Oversight and Review (O&R) internal investigators about a leak to the Wall Street Journal on May 9, 2017.) To this, Mr. Mcabe said he didn't do anything wrong and said the inspector general's conclusions relied on mischaracterizations and omissions, including of information favorable to McCabe. [* Now this is ironic, and I will get back to this later, but briefly Mr. McCabe is alluding to Brady material)
In recently released transcripts, an unidentified Department of Justice Oversight and Review Internal Investigator said that Mr. McCabe originally claimed that he did not give anyone permission to "divulge" the information to the media. The investigator also said that Mr. McCabe told him that he (McCabe) personally did not share the information nor grant anyone else permission to share the information.
Mr. McCabe claims that his firing last year was because President Trump had a plan to fire those that he perceived to be disloyal to him. And Mr. Mcabe sued the FBI claiming that those who were responsible in firing him, made up a reason to fire him.

And it isn't really now, now we know that back in 2017, when he (Mr. McCabe) was presented with evidence that was contrary to what he had said, he was asked again whether he was aware of the leak, and whether he authorized it. And then, Mr. Mcabe said: "Yep, yep he did." (That means Yep (yes ) he was aware of the leak, and yep (yes) he personally authorized the leak - he granted permission for the information to be leaked)
And now, now we or perhaps Mr. Durham, has to go back and assess the probable damage that Mr. McCabe's leak has done.
We now know that because of this leak, it confirmed the existence of a probe that was going on the Clinton foundation. The existence of which FBI Director James Comey did not want to be known.
This leak by Mr. McCabe effectively killed the FBI probe into the Clinton foundation. Mr. Durham can create a timeline around the leak and see if and where it lead to actions on the part of the Clinton Foundation (like BleachBit software to destroy the files on a hard drive)
So all the lies that Mr. McCabe had said previously are now exposed for what they were - lies. They were always lies, but we did not know about these facts until recently which have exposed them. The damage done will be completely assessed and presented eventually by Mr. Durham and perhaps others.
But lets return to the claim that Mr. McCabe made earlier; the claims that the inspector general relied on "mischaracterizations, and omissions, including information favorable to him." The mainstream media is going to try and frame the charge of Mr. McCabe lying to the FBI as being no different than the charge given to Michael Flynn. It is not the same, but what I want to point out here is that Mr. Mueller did not allow for "Brady" material to be included in his report, nor used in consideration for the people he prosecuted. Mr. Mueller's report mischaracterized many actions by President Trump and President Trump's campaign staff. But Mr. McCabe never seemed concerned about that. Mr. McCabe never brought that out publicly to defend President Trump's rights and the rights of his campaign staff. The main stream media will now be looking to see if they can help Mr. McCabe. They will say that he was already fired and that is or should be enough punishment. But Mr. Flynn was forced into bankruptcy by Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller tried to "leverage" all the power he had at his disposal to have Mr. Flynn turn on President Trump, and expose President Trump's involvement in a crime THAT NEVER EXISTED!
Now Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and Mr. McCabe are all crying and wailing about the negative consequences of their actions. -
As they say: Payback is a _ _ _ _ _.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

In 2001, he was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate. In 2004, Bush appointed him to chair the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, investigating ways to curb prison rape. In May 2007, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts appointed him to a seat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[4] His term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ended May 18, 2014. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2015.

During his FISC tenure, Judge Walton was "exceptionally concerned" about the NSA's "flagrant violation" of the court orders regarding privacy, and he accused the agency of "misinterpretations."[5]

The Washington Post reported, "fellow judges and lawyers who appear before him say Walton's decisions do not appear to be guided by politics but by a tough-on-crime mentality." Walton is known by local defense attorneys as a "long ball hitter" – a judge willing to impose long sentences in order to deter future crimes.[4] In fall 2005, the judge was driving his wife and daughter to the airport for a vacation when he came across an assailant attacking a cab driver on the side of the road. Walton tackled the assailant and subdued him until police arrived. The D.C. police spokesperson noted in response, "God bless Judge Walton. I surely wouldn't want to mess with him."[4]

[Mrtazeman]

In 2001, he was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate. In 2004, Bush appointed him to chair the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, investigating ways to curb prison rape. In May 2007, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts appointed him to a seat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[4] His term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ended May 18, 2014. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2015.

During his FISC tenure, Judge Walton was "exceptionally concerned" about the NSA's "flagrant violation" of the court orders regarding privacy, and he accused the agency of "misinterpretations."[5]

The Washington Post reported, "fellow judges and lawyers who appear before him say Walton's decisions do not appear to be guided by politics but by a tough-on-crime mentality." Walton is known by local defense attorneys as a "long ball hitter" – a judge willing to impose long sentences in order to deter future crimes.[4] In fall 2005, the judge was driving his wife and daughter to the airport for a vacation when he came across an assailant attacking a cab driver on the side of the road. Walton tackled the assailant and subdued him until police arrived. The D.C. police spokesperson noted in response, "God bless Judge Walton. I surely wouldn't want to mess with him."[4]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, what????

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
John Durham and AG Barr will come out with the results of their investigations and when they do there will most likely be prosecutions of the likely characters that have already been exposed in this scandal. One of the participants in this scandal, Robert Mueller, has violated numerous laws and should be held accountable for them. I seriously doubt that you have bothered to think about this.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2567940

More lessons learned from the Left and the media that supports them

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Comments?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Leftyg, you are a sad pathetic little man, with a big mouth that spews lies after lies. The people who read these posts can see that. You are not fooling anyone here. You are partisan puke. You do not care for the rule of law, the constitution, or the country as a whole. Your partisan concerns are only for the well being of your ideology and democrats in general. You get smaller and smaller with each passing day. You troll and troll. Go entertain yourself with others of your ilk.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

There is no legal justification for what Judge Sullivan is doing. He is not "protecting the constitution", he is not following judicial precedent, he would rather capitulate the Department of Justice and lawyers of all parties that are in agreement to drop this case. Because it is now recognized as an injustice, true justice would be to overturn / or drop the case. Judge Sullivan, by his action's is not doing the right thing here. Retired Judge Gleeson, like Robert Mueller, should not have accepted the role that he has been tasked to take. The actions by both judges are political activism, that will be struck down immediately when the Supreme Court is petitioned.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]