Jump to content

DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Just a reminder, Comey's testimony is tomorrow. A transcript within 24 hours (should) be provided. 

 

Just a reminder: after they release the transcript Monday, we're going to spend next week listening to self-important morons argue about whether 24 hours meant "calendar day" or "business day."

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Morning tweet storm: 

 

 

What's most interesting (to me) is the last tweet where 45 identifies "Nellie Ohr" as "Molly". 

 

Molly was (from what I've gathered prior to today), Nellie Ohr's HAM radio handle. 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/08/13/did_nellie_ohr_avoid_surveillance_with_a_ham_radio_450198.html

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/LicArchive/license.jsp?licKey=12382876&archive=Y

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... It took almost two years for the true aim to come out: 

 

 

"Reining Trump in" = "The voters didn't vote the way we wanted, so our goal was to overturn the election". 

 

This has always been the goal... it was denied by many in this thread for months and months. Not because they aren't smart posters, but because they had the gall to believe what they were being told by people we're supposed to trust: our IC officials and media members. But rather than realize they were had, lied to, and manipulated - something tells me most are still angry at the wrong person. 

 

Trump Russia has always been an (dis)information campaign waged by people who do not have the peoples' or the country's best interests in hearts. 

 

Time for a lot of people in here to wake up and smell what they've been shoveling. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

I know I'm shocked that someone who works for Fox is backing Trump.

 

Members of a farm team tend not to disparage the parent club.

 

You have to step out of the box you've sealed yourself into. 

 

Fox is controlled media, same as CNN. Same as MSNBC. Different jerseys, same team. Just like traditional Dems and Reps - same team, different jerseys. 

 

Mollie doesn't "work for Fox". She works for several different outlets - all of which have complications and problems. It's not the outlet, it's not the writer, it's not the story - all three must be taken into consideration at once while attempting to discern the spin from the truth. 

 

Truth is, the Russia/Trump collusion narrative died on the vine a year ago. It's been kept on life support by the controlled media (on both sides) because many in those media outlets are complicit in either the creation of the narrative or the promotion of it. It was never about finding the truth, it was about creating enough of a public outcry to overturn the results of a legal election. 

 

Why?

 

Because the elite media/DC pundits do not believe we should have a real say in our leadership or government. They think we are too stupid. Too unwashed. Too unworthy of our right to have a say in our democratic republic. 

 

If you're still on the Trump/Russia collusion bandwagon, chances are you've been had and sold a very spoiled bag of goods from people who think you're too stupid to know the difference between having a real say and the illusion of having a real say. 

 

Be better than they think you are. Think for yourself. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You have to step out of the box you've sealed yourself into. 

 

Fox is controlled media, same as CNN. Same as MSNBC. Different jerseys, same team. Just like traditional Dems and Reps - same team, different jerseys. 

 

Mollie doesn't "work for Fox". She works for several different outlets - all of which have complications and problems. It's not the outlet, it's not the writer, it's not the story - all three must be taken into consideration at once while attempting to discern the spin from the truth. 

 

Truth is, the Russia/Trump collusion narrative died on the vine a year ago. It's been kept on life support by the controlled media (on both sides) because many in those media outlets are complicit in either the creation of the narrative or the promotion of it. It was never about finding the truth, it was about creating enough of a public outcry to overturn the results of a legal election. 

 

Why?

 

Because the elite media/DC pundits do not believe we should have a real say in our leadership or government. They think we are too stupid. Too unwashed. Too unworthy of our right to have a say in our democratic republic. 

 

If you're still on the Trump/Russia collusion bandwagon, chances are you've been had and sold a very spoiled bag of goods from people who think you're too stupid to know the difference between having a real say and the illusion of having a real say. 

 

Be better than they think you are. Think for yourself. 

 

You are the one who has already arrived at a conclusion without the evidence.

One of us will be proven right. That you believe that anything in terms of legality or illegality has already been proven is odd to me considering we have not seen the findings. 

 

Let's see what is presented in the final report. If nothing damnable is proven, I'll admit my guess was wrong.

If the reverse takes place, I'm guessing your team will have a new bunch of reasons not to believe the evidence.

 

Just from Trump's public statements we know he has committed obstruction. The first time was in his interview with Lester Holt.

 

By the way, attempted collusion has already been proven, but collusion isn't the question, and it's not a criminal offense. The open question and only thing that matters pertains to possible conspiracy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comey is not being cooperative, per reports:

 

 

Just now, Kemp said:

 

You are the one who has already arrived at a conclusion without the evidence.

 

Incorrect. I have hunted for evidence to prove it was real. That's where it started for me - two years ago. 35 interviews stretching over 200 hours later, not to mention hours of reading, digging, and researching, have provided me with ample evidence to support my position. 

 

So far there is zero evidence to support Russian collusion or treason. 

 

None. 

 

That's not me arriving at a conclusion. It's me going where the evidence leads. 

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

One of us will be proven right. That you believe that anything in terms of legality or illegality has already been proven is odd to me considering we have not seen the findings. 

 

Again, this is blatantly false. We have seen numerous legal filings, memos, and hours of testimony that one can use to form an informed opinion on this matter. Only someone who's intentionally going out of their way to avoid said information can say with a straight face that no findings have been provided. 

 

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Let's see what is presented in the final report. If nothing damnable is proven, I'll admit my guess was wrong.

If the reverse takes place, I'm guessing your team will have a new bunch of reasons not to believe the evidence.

 

My team is you and me. The people. I do not have a dog in this fight other than the preservation of our voices in this democratic republic. Nothing more. 

 

If you'd stop looking at everything with your partisan lens you'd understand we are on the same side. The people lying to you about Russian collusion are also trying to get you to see me as the enemy. A man providing information which you can judge and vet for yourself is the enemy. Ask yourself why that line of bull is being pushed on you by the controlled media and political pundit class. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kemp said:

By the way, attempted collusion has already been proven, but collusion isn't the question, and it's not a criminal offense. The open question and only thing that matters pertains to possible conspiracy. 

 

There has been zero proof of collusion. None. 

 

But I'd be happy to hear what you presume to be evidence of it... 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meeting in Trump Tower is proof of attempted collusion unless you believe that the meeting was about adoption despite what has already been revealed through emails.

I am amused that you think you are part of some sort of exhaustive investigation that has revealed the truth to you. Unless you are working with Mueller's team, you have not seen an iota of what they have seen. 

 

Do you work with Mueller?

 

If so, I admit you know infinitely more than anyone else here.

 

If not, you are just another self-proclaimed expert on the Internet.

 

That you think someone who disagrees with you is operating with a bias while you are not, is quite bizarre. We all operate with some bias.

On a related subject, what did you think, if anything, about Trump bringing up the end of sanctions in an answer to the question of a Russian reporter who has since turned out to be a spy?

If you hadn't heard of it or thought about it, I'd be curious to know if you think it means anything.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kemp said:

The meeting in Trump Tower is proof of attempted collusion unless you believe that the meeting was about adoption despite what has already been revealed through emails.

 

I've broken this down at length before, so forgive me. But this is incorrect. 

 

It's not attempted collusion to take a meeting in order to get dirt on your political opponent. That happens every day on national campaigns and only crosses the collusion line if you're knowingly trafficking in illegally acquired material from a known foreign agent. So, taking the meeting is evidence of nothing and was in no way illegal. Shady? Sure. But that's big-boy politics, not espionage. 

 

But there's more to the Trump Tower meeting than it first appears. As proven now by congressional testimony from Glenn Simpson as well as hundreds of pages of additional evidence, everyone in that Trump Tower meeting not connected to the Trump campaign had direct connections not to Russia but to HRC's campaign and 44's administration. Here's how: 

 

1. The attorney who ran the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, did not have a VISA to come into the country. She was granted one at the 11th hour by the State Department just so she could make the meeting.

 

2. Prior to the meeting and immediately after, NV met with Glenn Simpson - owner of Fusion GPS. Simpson claimed he does not speak Russian and she doesn't speak English, yet they met immediately before and after this meeting took place. 

 

3. Goldstone who set the meeting has direct ties to Richard Dearlove of MI6 and British intelligence. Dearlove has direct connections to Alexander Downer, Halper, Brennan, and the Clinton machine. 

 

4. The translator used for the meeting worked for Meridian and was Clinton's personal translator while at the State Department. 

 

In summation - the only reason the meeting happened at all was because of the VISA approved by John Kerry's State Department at the 11th hour, and only came together after coordination between Fusion GPS, British Intelligence, and Paul Manafort (again, who's likely a plant). The meeting took place at the exact time we now know the FBI and CIA were working to insert undercover informants into Team Trump's orbit specifically to entrap them and justify FISAs. 

 

There's much more evidence this meeting was a set up than there is of any crimes being committed by Don Jr.

 

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:


I am amused that you think you are part of some sort of exhaustive investigation that has revealed the truth to you. Unless you are working with Mueller's team, you have not seen an iota of what they have seen. 

 

Do you work with Mueller?

 

If so, I admit you know infinitely more than anyone else here.

 

If not, you are just another self-proclaimed expert on the Internet.

 

I have never said I know more than Mueller. I show my work, it's (mostly) open source and able to be verified by those interested enough to dig into it. 

 

That doesn't make me a self proclaimed expert. The time I've put into this and the people I've interviewed makes me an expert. And it's easily achievable by anyone else who's willing to do the work themselves. 

 

21 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

That you think someone who disagrees with you is operating with a bias while you are not, is quite bizarre. We all operate with some bias.
 

 

We do. And I'm open with mine and actively work to challenge it with new material and information. 

 

The same cannot be said of you so far. That's why you're behind the curve. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

The biggest problem with that is that a very large number of people will consider that acceptable, necessary, and patriotic.

 

Of course they will.  Ever see a #resist bumper sticker?  It is part of the marketing campaign.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Kemp said:

The meeting in Trump Tower is proof of attempted collusion unless you believe that the meeting was about adoption despite what has already been revealed through emails.

 

Holy crap, for the thousandth time, collusion isn't a crime.

I don't even know what to make of "attempted collusion".

 

I've got a question for all the "collusion people" out there:

They've got PROOF that Papadapoulos spoke with Mifsud (a foreigner) to talk about hacked/stolen emails.  Why haven't they just stopped there, tied Papadapoulos to Trump, and called it a day?

 

 

 

Edited by snafu
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Kemp said:

The meeting in Trump Tower is proof of attempted collusion unless you believe that the meeting was about adoption despite what has already been revealed through emails.

I am amused that you think you are part of some sort of exhaustive investigation that has revealed the truth to you. Unless you are working with Mueller's team, you have not seen an iota of what they have seen. 

 

Do you work with Mueller?

 

If so, I admit you know infinitely more than anyone else here.

 

If not, you are just another self-proclaimed expert on the Internet.

 

That you think someone who disagrees with you is operating with a bias while you are not, is quite bizarre. We all operate with some bias.

On a related subject, what did you think, if anything, about Trump bringing up the end of sanctions in an answer to the question of a Russian reporter who has since turned out to be a spy?

If you hadn't heard of it or thought about it, I'd be curious to know if you think it means anything.

You're a year past due on this. Ketchup to everything before you spout off at the mouth again. It's rather annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...