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

[BeginnersMind]

Just now, Foxx said:

D? dumb?

i know, i know... low hanging fruit....

 

Way to elevate a conversation. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Way to elevate a conversation. 

 

Nice comeback.  Now make it rhyme.

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Nice comeback.  Now make it rhyme.

Way to elevate a conversation

To take the greatest of this great nation:

The boys castrated of masculinity by toxic diagnosis

All to promote the power of multiple optional sexes.

Left behind is a battered man left to contemplate

His being tarnished and a soul left too late

The women wrought with anger and power

Hypocrites, seeking destruction his corpse to devour.

They simply dispell his behavior as archaic

Again, ironic and pharsaic.

 

Democrats are destroying us,

Their identity politics, worthless virtues, and entire platform of shaming are dangerous

A party that once offered pillars on which society stood for the old and begotten ways

Now approaches the future designed with more pernicious wretched days.

[Numark3]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Your first post implied reading indictments is not helpful. It is. Much more helpful than the media coverage on this subject. 

 

 

No one is predicting anything, or using the indictments to "predict" anything. We do not need to "predict" Mueller, his initial mandate (and the subject of this thread) is known. He was tasked with finding whether or not there was any Russian/Trump collusion or conspiracy with regards to illegally tilting the 2016 election. With that frame work, and reading not just one indictment but all of them to date - plus congressional testimony, plus the dossier - you can glean quite a bit about what is actually happening with Mueller's probe. Far more than you can if you rely on the news media to do it for you. 

 

 

There's a ton of evidence in open source already, including the previous indictments, which when stitched together can be very illuminating. Arguing otherwise is just laziness or ignorance. No one is claiming it shows the whole picture, but in terms of the major points of contention in this matter it's extremely helpful to do your own work and reading. 

 

 

Then it's a good thing I've been up to my eyeballs in the minutia of this matter since October 2016.  

 

The entire premise of the dossier, it's main thrust when you strip away the salacious tinkle tape material, is that Trump - not his campaign or his people, but Trump himself - coordinated a hack-and-release operation with Russian intelligence agents to hack and release Hillary's, the DCCC's and Podesta's emails through WikiLeaks. That's what the dossier claims happened. That's what the media has pushed (as fact) for two years. That's what was promised to the American people by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. That charge in the dossier is what lead to not one or two but several FISA warrants on multiple people in and around POTUS while he was POTUS.

 

And the eventual appointment of an SCO. 

 

Stone's indictment makes it crystal clear, in the SCO's own words, that no such scheme existed. It makes clear that no one on the campaign, let alone Trump himself, knew of the emails being hacked before they went public, nor did they have any direct contacts to WikiLeaks. They had to rely on Stone's contacts to WikiLeaks - which this indictment makes clear he did not have. Which begs the question, if Trump is coordinating directly with Russian intelligence to leak this material, why does he not know about its existence until after it's made public, and why would he need to go through Stone to find a backchannel to WikiLeaks who - we are supposed to believe from the media and Brennan/Clapper, are Russian intelligence themselves? 

 

It doesn't add up to the original story. At all. And this isn't being reported on in the MSM... but it is all there for anyone to see for themselves in the indictments. 

 

If you've paid attention to the minutia from the beginning, you'd see how this is a very, very, very, damaging blow to the dossier and the main foundation of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. And that can be gleaned from the indictments directly. 

 

So, you're wrong. The indictments are incredibly helpful if you know what you're reading and have the context to help guide you through it. 

 

 

You're lacking context and again trying to force a conclusion that no one is making. 

 

The indictment mortally wounds the Dossier's central claims. > Without the dossier there's no FISA or SCO. > Now fruit from the poisonous tree becomes a real problem because the dossier material was relied upon so heavily in the kick off of this investigation. 

 

What we've been told publicly since day one about this from the USIC has been proven to be complete and utter bull#### at nearly every turn since the ICA was released. These indictments are evidence to that as well.

 

You have two themes. One is that reading the details is more helpful than listening to the MSM.  I fully agree, and I am not saying you can't useful information from indictments.  The second theme is that you are up to date on the minutia and details.  My overall point is that you can't be up to date on the inner workings of the investigation, you only know what has been put out there.  We don't know what facts or theories they are working on specifically to trump (if any).  We can start to cross start off, sure.  But because we don't know what facts or legal theories drive their investigation, we can only apply so much of what we know.  Saying stuff like "page 4 of the indictment clears trump of Russian collusion) is laughably dumb.  

 

I am not trying to be an ass, but reading indictments can only get you so far in analyzing what the investigation on trump is.  It is great that you are taking it as far as it lets you, but it can only be so far.  Maybe you aren't seeing my main point.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Let me say what DR was saying in a more simple and direct manner. If you are following a vehicle and they turn on their right turning signal, what do you think they might do?

 

Yea you can predict what that vehicle might do.  Not what another vehicle, that we have no idea about, is going to do.  

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

You have two themes. One is that reading the details is more helpful than listening to the MSM.  I fully agree, and I am not saying you can't useful information from indictments.  The second theme is that you are up to date on the minutia and details.  My overall point is that you can't be up to date on the inner workings of the investigation, you only know what has been put out there.  We don't know what facts or theories they are working on specifically to trump (if any).  We can start to cross start off, sure.  But because we don't know what facts or legal theories drive their investigation, we can only apply so much of what we know.  Saying stuff like "page 4 of the indictment clears trump of Russian collusion) is laughably dumb.  

 

I am not trying to be an ass, but reading indictments can only get you so far in analyzing what the investigation on trump is.  It is great that you are taking it as far as it lets you, but it can only be so far.  Maybe you aren't seeing my main point.  

 

 

 

 

Yea you can predict what that vehicle might do.  Not what another vehicle, that we have no idea about, is going to do.  

Of course, nothing is absolute. Even DR admits he might have to change his thinking somewhat pending new information. If I see a right turning signal I'm figuring that they may be going that way. When they actually get on the off ramp there's not much doubt left in my mind. Now could they turn around and go the wrong way on the ramp? Highly unlikely, but possibly conceivable. I figure DR is watching them on the off ramp and is pretty confident that's the way they are going. DR has a ton of time into research on this subject and has been challenged all along the way. He's been up to that challenge and has made a believer out of a lot of us. You are just another challenger in a long line of challengers but you're coming to a gunfight with not even a knife but a toy gun.

[Numark3]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Of course, nothing is absolute. Even DR admits he might have to change his thinking somewhat pending new information. If I see a right turning signal I'm figuring that they may be going that way. When they actually get on the off ramp there's not much doubt left in my mind. Now could they turn around and go the wrong way on the ramp? Highly unlikely, but possibly conceivable. I figure DR is watching them on the off ramp and is pretty confident that's the way they are going. DR has a ton of time into research on this subject and has been challenged all along the way. He's been up to that challenge and has made a believer out of a lot of us. You are just another challenger in a long line of challengers but you're coming to a gunfight with not even a knife but a toy gun.

 

I don't think you guys are tracking.  It isn't about researching the topic, its the idea of applying what you learn from indictments to a closed-book investigation.  I'm sure DR knows all of the available information extremely well.  But you need to understand that the facts in the stone stuff, may have zero overlap with potential facts driving a collusion claim against trump.

 

And no offense, but I don't think a bring a toy gun to any legal discussion.  The concept of what an indictment is and what you can take from them isn't exactly controversial.  

 

And challenging DR?  I laughed at a tweet saying a page of an indictment cleared trump of collusion of something (which is laughable).  DR can post all he wants about whatever.  

Edited January 27, 2019 by Crayola64

[The_Dude]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ex-dnc-chair-roger-stone-114406069.html

 

BREAKING: Woman who was sued for helping rig election for Hillary (proven) calls out Stone for allegedly helping Trump do the same. 

[3rdnlng]

29 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ex-dnc-chair-roger-stone-114406069.html

 

BREAKING: Woman who was sued for helping rig election for Hillary (proven) calls out Stone for allegedly helping Trump do the same. 

The DNC emails were downloaded by someone who had direct access to a DNC computer. They were not hacked over the internet. This we have known from nearly the beginning and because they were downloaded at a speed impossible to obtain from the internet. With that said, could it have been a certain DNC staffer who was known to have had email contact with Wikileaks? The same guy who was murdered in the wee hours of the night who was last seen with an Awan brother. The Capitol Police said he was killed in a robbery gone bad but the only item taken was his life.

[Nanker]

36 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I don't think you guys are tracking.  It isn't about researching the topic, its the idea of applying what you learn from indictments to a closed-book investigation.  I'm sure DR knows all of the available information extremely well.  But you need to understand that the facts in the stone stuff, may have zero overlap with potential facts driving a collusion claim against trump.

 

And no offense, but I don't think a bring a toy gun to any legal discussion.  The concept of what an indictment is and what you can take from them isn't exactly controversial.  

 

And challenging DR?  I laughed at a tweet saying a page of an indictment cleared trump of collusion of something (which is laughable).  DR can post all he wants about whatever.  

No, you’re right to a point. Mueller might do a Wilie Coyote flim-flammy on the jimmy-jammie ending or a Bugs Bunny 540 degree turnaround at the last moment.

 

One doesn’t know with assurance what the outcome will be, especially when the script is off-record and the persecution is focused on ex-post facto incidents or events that occurred several years prior to when the charged individuals were connected in any way - even tangentially to POTUS or his camp. 

 

But what we do have is evidence of clear cut collusion on the DNC’s side, rampant corruption in the CIA, FBI, and DOJ including a cabal that attempted to overturn an election and actually overthrow our nation’s federal government. 

 

One of the hallmarks and proudest achievements of our form of government is the sanctity of our elections and the peaceful transfer of power. The Dems from B O and Clintons on down have turned their backs on the hallowed pledge to support the victorious candidate.

 

They disgrace themselves and tarnish the country in the process. 

 

I do hope that the real criminals in this sleazy chapter of our history will be brought to justice and be forced to undergo the rigorous investigation and prosecution that seems to be all the rage in this age of hysteria. 

[Foxx]

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The DNC emails were downloaded by someone who had direct access to a DNC computer. They were not hacked over the internet. This we have known from nearly the beginning and because they were downloaded at a speed impossible to obtain from the internet. With that said, could it have been a certain DNC staffer who was known to have had email contact with Wikileaks? The same guy who was murdered in the wee hours of the night who was last seen with an Awan brother. The Capitol Police said he was killed in a robbery gone bad but the only item taken was his life.

when Podesta's password was literally, "password", you are begging to be hacked.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

when Podesta's password was literally, "password", you are begging to be hacked.

We are not talking about the same instance.

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

We are not talking about the same instance.

likely, the passwords were gained through phishing.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

likely, the passwords were gained through phishing.

Regardless, the initial information was most likely sent to Wikileaks by a DNC staff person who was pissed about the fix being in for Hillary.

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Regardless, the initial information was most likely sent to Wikileaks by a DNC staff person who was pissed about the fix being in for Hillary.

botched robbery attempts will not only get one killed, but they will also cause your attacker(s) to forget to take your wallet.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I don't think you guys are tracking.  It isn't about researching the topic, its the idea of applying what you learn from indictments to a closed-book investigation.  I'm sure DR knows all of the available information extremely well.  But you need to understand that the facts in the stone stuff, may have zero overlap with potential facts driving a collusion claim against trump.

 

And no offense, but I don't think a bring a toy gun to any legal discussion.  The concept of what an indictment is and what you can take from them isn't exactly controversial.  

 

And challenging DR?  I laughed at a tweet saying a page of an indictment cleared trump of collusion of something (which is laughable).  DR can post all he wants about whatever.  

 Your perspective is one that I find most troubling. You've acknowledged that you believe Trump did not collude with the Russian govt, yet seem to be comfortable with watching everything thereafter play out like a science experiment. There is no denying this collusion issue is the love child of some of the most powerful people in our government, and it has created tremendous stress on the administration and destroyed whatever faith some may have had in our "leaders". The reality is that no one can perpetually withstand an all-out assault by the federal government when the two main elements of the investigation are "1. Find something and 2. Your budget is whatever you need.".  At a minimum, mueller and his team are being paid a fortune to investigate, and their future looks bright indeed after this is all concluded just after 11/2019. 

 

I dont worry about extremists.  When I see a post from one of the far leftys I know that somewhere on a liberal message board their twin brother is espousing some right wing bsto horrified libs.  They are cut from the same cloth.  

 

I don't understand your comfort level here.  

[njbuff]

When do the indictments come down for the dirty players on the left side of the isle?

 

Oh, that's right, if you are a Democrat you will get away with the exact same things that Stone is being accused of.

 

Very, very dangerous, my friends.

[4merper4mer]

8 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Way to elevate a conversation. 

Should he post something about a dead leaf or how God is a big meanie?

[Numark3]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 Your perspective is one that I find most troubling. You've acknowledged that you believe Trump did not collude with the Russian govt, yet seem to be comfortable with watching everything thereafter play out like a science experiment. There is no denying this collusion issue is the love child of some of the most powerful people in our government, and it has created tremendous stress on the administration and destroyed whatever faith some may have had in our "leaders". The reality is that no one can perpetually withstand an all-out assault by the federal government when the two main elements of the investigation are "1. Find something and 2. Your budget is whatever you need.".  At a minimum, mueller and his team are being paid a fortune to investigate, and their future looks bright indeed after this is all concluded just after 11/2019. 

2

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying.  I think as a general principle, what you said about allowing the government to do whatever it wants in an investigation is wrong (as in ethically/morally/philosophically/etc wrong, not that what you are saying is wrong!).  It is just this isn't an issue that bothers me much, though I get your view.  

 

 

 

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I dont worry about extremists.  When I see a post from one of the far leftys I know that somewhere on a liberal message board their twin brother is espousing some right wing bsto horrified libs.  They are cut from the same cloth.  

 

I don't understand your comfort level here.  

 

Not every bad or wrong thing bothers me, that's all.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying.  I think as a general principle, what you said about allowing the government to do whatever it wants in an investigation is wrong (as in ethically/morally/philosophically/etc wrong, not that what you are saying is wrong!).  It is just this isn't an issue that bothers me much, though I get your view.  

 

Not every bad or wrong thing bothers me, that's all.  

 

The federal government using it's unlimited resources to first invent a reason via self-created "evidence" to initiate an investigation into a private citizen, and then use that sham in order to pursue an open ended drive to find criminality in other private citizens, and the first private citizen themselves doesn't bother you???

 

That is stunning, and dangerously stupid; and is the absolute antithesis of a free society under which the rule of law affords citizens the protection of their basic human rights under a Constitution.

[Numark3]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The federal government using it's unlimited resources to first invent a reason via self-created "evidence" to initiate an investigation into a private citizen, and then use that sham in order to pursue an open ended drive to find criminality in other private citizens, and the first private citizen themselves doesn't bother you???

 

That is stunning, and dangerously stupid; and is the absolute antithesis of a free society under which the rule of law affords citizens the protection of their basic human rights under a Constitution.

 

What?  That I can be comfortable with some things I find wrong instead of being upset?  Get a grip.  If we made a list of 100 terrible things going on in the world, I doubt you are actively getting upset over each them.  

 

Dangerous and stunning?  Go back to drama class.