Comey and Mueller

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Jun 9, 2017.

  1. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Agree!
     
  2. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    I went back and read my original and can see where you take exception to saying you guys need mental help but I did not say you were stupid for attacking the msm. I agree with you that they are by and large guilty as charged, MY point was intended to mean that attacking the press for dumping on Trump missed the point that Trump is a danger in his present position. The press may have bad motives but that does not mean the emperor is well dressed.

    My apologies for the intemperate language, i thought it would be recognized as rhetorical hyperbole and not as a plug for the psychologists

    ....and I tried that pissing up a rope thing once on the suggestion of my father and it just doesn't work.
     
  3. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    I don't think that is correct (emphasis mine):

    Having said that, apology accepted. Carry on.
     
  4. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    We were both on a roll. :smile1:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The walls of this big set up are crumbling

     
  6. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    If your goal was to destabilize the democratic process and the free press you would plant some bad stories and you'd leave fingerprints all over the hacking. If 98% of the Steele dossier is accurate and only the pee pee stuff is made up, for some, it invalidates the other 98% to some.
     
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    None of the allegations were sourced
    And the person who made the allegations and the people who published them are all refusing to testify
     
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    A federal judge who is the wife of yet another Democrat lawyer who joined Mueller has recused herself from two lawsuits involving the President

    The judge who is, of course, an Obama appointee did the recusal without warning or prompting by the parties. But worry not liberals, as the cases were, of course, reassigned to another Dem-appointed judge.


     
  10. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Regardless of the sourcing, show where it was inaccurate to this point.
     
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Shouldn't this judge be celebrated for recusing themselves from an obvious conflict of interest? Does it matter whether they were an Obama, Bush Reagan or Nixon appointee?
     
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    No, its your allegation and, thus, the burden is on you to demonstrate its truthfulness
    Otherwise, you are just talking out your butt
     
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  14. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    The allegation was made by Steele, not me. I'm just commenting on it. I'm in no hurry. We'll just see where the facts take Mueller and his team.
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    That's certainly an easier path than sourcing your allegations
     
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    More on the DOJ redactions relation to the now infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch meeting on a private jet parked on the tarmac --

    ".... the Justice Department refuses to disclose the talking points developed by the Obama Justice Department to help it respond to press inquiries about the controversial June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

    The Justice Department heavily redacted the documents under Exemption b (5), which allows agencies to withhold draft or deliberative process material. The blacked-out material centers around talking points drafted and used by Justice to respond to press inquiries about the Lynch-Clinton meeting.

    * * * *

    One email exchange shows that Former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik was brought in to assist with public relations issues on June 28, 2016, the day after the tarmac meeting. (Kadzik is a longtime friend of John Podesta and a Hillary Clinton donor, who was criticized as being conflicted when he was assigned as the Justice Department attorney to oversee the probe of Hillary Clinton’s and her aide Huma Abedin’s emails found on Anthony Wiener’s computer.)

    Director of the Justice Department Public Affairs Office Melanie Newman sent an email to Richard P. Quinn, former National Security Assistant Special Agent, and Michael P. Kortan, who is currently the assistant director for Public Affairs for the FBI, advising them she wanted to “flag a story” about “a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” And she provides the AG’s talking points.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press release
     
  17. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    Ironically, I think that meeting on Bill's part cost his wife the election. Kind of like being hoisted on his own petard.
     
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Bill's wife cost Bill's wife the election
     
  19. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    No, you're wrong. RUSSIA! cost Bill's political wife the election.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Barry, that meeting definitely didn't help, but it's not why she lost. She lost for two reasons. First, she was an unlikable and uninspiring candidate that nobody trusted.

    Second, she's a victim of a major political realignment caused by the Democratic Party shifting part of its base from working class voters to upper class, educated urban voters, which was frankly the biggest factor. Ironically, that started under Bill Clinton and probably got him elected because he could reap the benefits of both groups for a while, but by the time Hillary was the nominee, the realignment was completed, which meant the middle class was lost.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    IMHO, The current DOJ heavily redacted previously collected info in an effort to wash away the Obama admin's narrative of the event.

    It's also necessary to preserve the integrity and veracity of conclusions formed by the coming, more earnest investigations into the same matter.

    We've seen countless times how scandalous the Obama admin was at collecting and manipulating info (climate, jobs, Obamacare).

    Why shape public opinion now with materials uncovered by a tainted collection process? New investigations will be more intensive and actually seek all the facts and wrongdoing.

    Hell Obama's AG was the one directly involved. Was her own DOJ expected to seek out and uncover illegalities surrounding this event? :rolleyes1:

    Congress recently opened an investigation which includes the tarmac meeting. They also requested DOJ appoint a special prosecutor for their own investigation into it.

    I assume the current DOJ wants new investigations to have a clean slate to probe this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017
  22. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Mueller has impaneled a grand jury
    This officially makes it a criminal matter
    You dont seat a grand jury for counter-intelligence operations
     
  24. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Mueller evidently found evidence of a witches.
     
  25. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    So what's behind all of this. the big picture?
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article197288.html
    [​IMG]
    It is a scandal without precedent. The White House Secretary General, Reince Priebus, was part of the plot designed to destabilise President Trump and prepare for his destitution. He was the source of daily leaks which trouble the political life of the United States, in particular those concerning the alleged collusion between Trump’s team and the Kremlin [1]. By dismissing him, President Trump has entered into conflict with the establishment of the Republican party, of which Priebus is the ex-President.

    Let’s note as we go that none of these leaks concerning the agendas and the contacts between those concerned have provided the slightest proof of the allegations made.

    The reorganisation of the Trump team which followed was exclusively to the detriment of Republican personalities and to the benefit of the military personnel who are opposed to the guardianship of the deep state. The alliance which was concluded – making the best of a difficult situation - by the Republican party with Donald Trump during the inaugural convention on 21 July 2016, is now worthless. We therefore find ourselves faced with the equation with which we started – one one side, the outsider President of « the People’s America », and on the other, all of the Washington ruling class supported by the deep state (meaning that part of the administration charged with the continuity of the state over and above political alternances).

    It is apparent that this coalition is supported by the United Kingdom and Israël.

    So what had to happen happened – the Democrat and Republican leaders came to an agreement to thwart President Trump’s foreign policy and preserve their imperial advantages.

    To do so, they adopted, in Congress, a 70-page law which officially set up sanctions against North Korea, Iran and Russia [2]. The text unilaterally promulgates that all other states in the world must respect these commercial restrictions. The sanctions therefore apply equally to the European Union and to China as to the states officially targeted.

    Only five parlementarians dissociated themselves from this coalition and voted against the law - representatives Justin Amash, Tom Massie and Jimmy Duncan, and senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.

    The dispositions of this law more or less forbid the Executive to ease these commercial interdictions by any means whatsoever. Theoretically, therefore, Donald Trump is tied hands and feet. Of course, he can use his veto, but according to the Constitution, it would be enough for Congress to revote the text in the same terms in order to be able to impose it on the President. He will therefore sign it, thus avoiding the insult of being called to order by Congress. In the next few days, we shall see the start of a war unlike any other.

    The political parties of the United States have every intention of destroying the « Trump doctrine », according to which the United States must evolve faster than other states in order to conserve world leadership. On the contrary, they intend to re-establish the « Wolfowitz doctrine » of 1992, according to which Washington must conserve its advance over the rest of the world by hindering the development of all potential competitors [3].

    Paul Wolfowitz is a Trotskyist who worked for Republican President Bush the Elder to help with the war against Russia. He became Assistant Secretary of Defense ten years later, under Bush Junior, and then President of the World Bank. Last year, he gave his support to Democrat Hillary Clinton. In 1992, he wrote that the most dangerous competitor of the United States was the European Union, and that Washington should destroy it politically, even economically.

    The law casts doubt on everything that Donald Trump has accomplished over the last six months, notably the fight against the Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist organisations, the preparation of the independence of Donbass (Malorossiya), and the re-opening of the Silk Road.

    As a first reprisal, Russia asked Washington to reduce the staff of its embassy in Moscow to the level of its own embassy in Washington, in other words, 455 people - requiring the expulsion of 755. In this way, Moscow intends to remind us that even if it had interfered in US politics, their interference has no comparison to the importance of US interference in Russia’s own political life.

    While we are on this subject, it was only on 27 February that the Minister for Defence, Sergeï Choïgou, announced to the Douma that the Russian armies now have the capability to organise « colour revolutions », 28 years behind the United States.

    The Europeans now realise with stupefaction that their friends in Washington (the Democrats Obama and Clinton, the Republicans McCain and McConnell) have just put a full stop to any hope of growth within the Union. This is certainly a nasty shock, and yet they still have not felt able to admit that the allegedly « unpredictable » Donald Trump is in reality their best ally. Completely stunned by the vote, which rained on their summer holidays, the Europeans have opted for the « on hold » position.

    Unless they react immediately, the companies who have invested in the European Union’s solution for their energy supply are now ruined. Wintershall, E.ON Ruhrgas, N. V. Nederlandse Gasunie, and Engie (ex-GDF Suez) had all committed to the doubling of the gas pipeline North Stream, which is now forbidden by Congress. They not only forfeit the right to respond to US calls for tender, but they also lose all their assets in the United States. They are refused entry to international banks and are forbidden to pursue their activities outside the Union.

    For the moment, only the German government has expressed its confusion. We do not know whether they will be able to convince their European partners and rouse the Union against its US suzerain. Such a crisis has never arisen before, and as a result, there exists no element of reference which could enable us to anticipate what is to come. It is probable that certain of the member states of the Union will defend US interests - those who think according to Congress, against their European partners.

    The United States, like any state, can forbid their companies to do business with foreign states and foreign companies to do business with them. But according to the Charter of the United Nations, they may not impose their own choices in terms of allies and partners. But this is what they have been doing since their sanctions against Cuba. At that time, under the influence of Fidel Castro – who was not a Communist – the Cuban Revolutionary Government launched an agrarian reform which Washington chose to oppose [4]. The members of NATO, who couldn’t have cared less about that tiny Caribbean island, followed obediently along. Progressively, the West, full of itself, considered it normal to starve out any states which resisted their all-powerful suzerain. So here, for the first time, the European Union is affected by the system which it helped set up.

    More than ever, the conflict between Trump and the Establishment takes on a cultural form. It opposes the descendants of the immigrants who came seeking the « American dream » to those of the Puritans of the Mayflower [5]. This, for example, is the root of the denunciation by the international Presse of the vulgar language used by the new man responsible for White House communications, Anthony Scaramucci. Until now Hollywood was perfectly at ease with the manners of New York businessmen, but suddenly this uncouth language is presented as incompatible with the exercise of Power. Only President Richard Nixon talked that way, and he was forced to resign by the FBI who organised the Watergate scandal to bring him down. Nonetheless, everyone now agrees that he was a great President, who put an end to the Vietnam War and rebalanced international relations with the Peoples’ Republic of China, faced with the USSR. It is surprising to see the Press of old Europe take up the religious, Puritan argument against the vocabulary of Scaramucci in order to judge the political competence of Donald Trump’s team; and for the President himself to fire him when he had only just been nominated.

    But behind what may seem to be no more than a class struggle, the future of the world is at stake. Either relations steeped in confrontation and domination, or cooperation and development.
     
  26. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    So many moving parts that must be in sync with each other. Reminds me of something Oliver stone would write up. It can't be as simple as "Russia reached and and said they'd help. We were losing. We thought "why not?" We shouldn't have lied about it so much. Now they don't trust us and they cut off my balls with regard to Russia and the special prosecutor."?
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The mainstream media was cooperating with Lynch/DOJ trying to bury the tarmac meeting story
    WAPO reporter Matt Zapotosky wrote to DOJ saying he sought to put the Lynch-Clinton meeting story to rest

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Wouldnt mind knowing who that ABC producer is who agreed to sit on the tarmac/private jet story no matter what
    Think they will ever tell us?
     
  29. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Why do we allow this stuff?

    An attorney in the Justice Department who helped edit press statements about the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch is now a top attorney for Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently investigating Lynch over concerns she may have tried to influence the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...committee-investigating-lynch/article/2631026
     
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    You mean the issue that McMaster said was nothing? Thank God you guys are on the case!
     

Share This Page