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

[LA Grant]

20 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

What happened in the build up to the war wasn't a simple dissemination of bad information, it was a coordinated effort by the USIC and their media cut outs to lie to the American people. VERY big difference.

 

It was a blatant propaganda effort headed by specific journalists (who still have jobs and positions of clout) and specific members of the USIC. The cross over of those reporters and the MSM cut outs leading the narrative relevant to this thread is near 100%. 

 

This isn't an accident. It's intentional. The very same people, not just the same organization and news outlets, that propagandized the people into not just war, but surrendering their fourth and fifth amendment rights in the name of security, are the same people who have been lying about Russian collusion since the start of this narrative. 

 

I point this out because here is where partisanship becomes apparent. We can quibble over the details of the collusion case, but one thing that cannot be denied is that the very same people who have proven themselves liars and perjurers are being touted as truth tellers now by the left because it's convenient to their politics, not because it's factual. 

 

This includes mainstays of the journalistic world. 

 

 

Before we get into the weeds — hold up here, Rhino. You began by asking me a pretty invasive question about my age, on a message board where we all enjoy a degree of anonymity. I asked you the same question. You didn't respond. What's up with that? 

 

You did that in the gun thread, too. So this is two times you've endeavored to "get to know me" but both times they were presented in less than good faith. Good faith would be you offering first, then requesting a return, rather than demanding I come toward you with the promise that you'll maybe play fair. You didn't. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but, at the very least, you'll need to return the favor you asked for & tell me how old you are (approximately) + where you were in 2001. 

 

Quote

 

I know you're not speaking to me directly, but I'm compelled to answer based on the conception of me you have. I've never been one to push only alternative sources. Quite the opposite. My intent in pointing this out isn't to say all NYT articles are bunk, but articles written by specific people - people we've proven throughout time to be cut outs of the USIC who care not about the truth but about whatever agenda they're pushing - are the ones we need to weed out. It's a more nuanced conversation that boils down to the specific messengers, not their organizations. 

 

I've pointed out multiple times how the alternative media suffers from the same partisanship and shortcomings of the MSM. We are, without question, in an information war right now. We're all on the front, we're all fighting the fight every day. Because of that, the disinformation is coming from all sides - the MSM and Alternative media. The only way to get through it as individuals is to hone our OWN discernment. That means reading everything you can on a subject and comparing and contrasting the differences to find the truth which lies in the middle most times.

 

Who are the specific people? Not a trick question. Genuinely curious.

 

Media partisanship exists, yes, no argument. The tricky thing is that the dishonesty is not equally spread. The dishonest thrive on the false equivalency between left and right. The MSM, especially CNN, are extraordinarily guilty of propagating "both sides"-isms way more than they're guilty of pushing the liberal agenda. Fox News (for just one example) very intentionally exploits this weakness in our overall system of discussion as the foundation for their entire brand, pretending that because "the mainstream media" push a liberal agenda, it's okay for them to completely slant their coverage and misrepresent stories constantly. (There are liberal versions of this too with the same but opposite reasoning).

 

One side could say "we should start using mustard gas against our political opponents" and the other could say "you can't do that because it would be inhumane not to mention illegal." CNN would report this as "Washington deadlocked in partisan debate on law enforcement." 

 

Some ideas are dumb and bad, but they get treated with kids gloves -- partly because MSM media have a fear of being labeled elitists, and partly because theoretically in a democratic society, all ideas are equal, and they're trying to serve that ideal and be representative.  Because U.S. politics are divided into the two-party system, we are all under the working assumption that all ideas as equally valid. But this is ridiculous, because not all ideas are equally valid. Some things are wrong. The idea that the sun comes out of the ground every day is obviously wrong, even if we get to a point where a percentage of the public insist that it's true. 

 

To keep this about the Intelligence Community, here's a post from Reddit Politics re: Nunes that sums up what I'm trying to say.

 

 

 

Quote

 

There's no "alternative" media organizations - not in the same way there are MSM organizations that come with a legacy. There are individual press shops that should, and are, judged on their individual merit. None of them have the cover of a NYT or Washington Post where just saying "this is an article from the NYT" bestows some sense of truth to it automatically. If you did the same with an InfoWars piece, the opposite effect would result. People would assume it's bunk, whereas people would assume the NYT's is legit. The difference is, no one will (normally) take the time to fact check a NYT piece, but most will with an Intercept piece or InfoWars piece. 

 

Each piece of investigative work needs to be read and analyzed on it's own. 

 

This takes time. Time most Americans do not have or are unwilling to commit to putting in when it comes to getting their news. It's not an alt vs MSM thing. It's an individual responsibility thing. 

 

 

Theoretically, yes, you're right, or, I agree.

 

Practically speaking, the NYT and InfoWars have developed their reputations through their body of work. 

 

We can say that someone who can barely bench the bar & someone who can deadlift 300lbs are both equally "bodybuilders" — but we'd be kidding ourselves if we said they are equal in strength when they go into the weight room, even though they're both allowed to use the equipment. 

 

Quote

 

I've never watched his show, or seen anything more than a few clips of Jones's show - and most of those were parodies - so I can't speak to this at all with any degree of experience. 

 

I can, and do, speak frequently about this: 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736

 

Which is a bill from 2012 which made it legal for the USIC to use the MSM to directly propagandize the American people. 

 

Because that's where we are, and where we have been for 6 years now. Living in a "free" society where the USIC can openly and blatantly lie to us through heritage media institutions without consequences. 

 

 

I think, genuinely, that it is good to be skeptical about the media, and to be concerned about propaganda. When I was a teacher, I made it a priority for students to "read between the lines." Simply because you are reading something — in a book, online, whatever it is — does not mean it is the objective truth. So in a sense, theoretically anyway, we agree on this principle.

 

The thing I'm cautioning against is propaganda is not simply coming from the government. Our society & system of government is complicated, or more accurately, convoluted. Where does power come from? What gives the officials power? Do they have power, and how is it wielded? What gives the Constitution power? Does it have power? 

 

Theoretically, the answers to most of those would be "the people." In practice, "the people" = "money." 

 

Money talks & money makes propaganda. (Not saying this next sentence is you personally) I've always been puzzled by the right's willingness to believe that, say, George Soros paid for protests, or the Women's March, or whatever else, and equal unwillingness to entertain any ideas about the Mercers, Kochs, or the NRA as thoroughly crooked, corrupting influences — despite the latter examples having clearer and more damning evidence. 

 

I think it comes down to the false equivalency thing I mentioned above. If one brings up the Mercers, Kochs, NRA, then the response is: "George Soros!" — it keeps everything mired in dogmatic, tribalistic ignorance. 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Before we get into the weeds — hold up here, Rhino. You began by asking me a pretty invasive question about my age, on a message board where we all enjoy a degree of anonymity. I asked you the same question. You didn't respond. What's up with that? 

 

You did that in the gun thread, too. So this is two times you've endeavored to "get to know me" but both times they were presented in less than good faith. Good faith would be you offering first, then requesting a return, rather than demanding I come toward you with the promise that you'll maybe play fair. You didn't. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but, at the very least, you'll need to return the favor you asked for & tell me how old you are (approximately) + where you were in 2001. 

 

 

Who are the specific people? Not a trick question. Genuinely curious.

 

Media partisanship exists, yes, no argument. The tricky thing is that the dishonesty is not equally spread. The dishonest thrive on the false equivalency between left and right. The MSM, especially CNN, are extraordinarily guilty of propagating "both sides"-isms way more than they're guilty of pushing the liberal agenda. Fox News (for just one example) very intentionally exploits this weakness in our overall system of discussion as the foundation for their entire brand, pretending that because "the mainstream media" push a liberal agenda, it's okay for them to completely slant their coverage and misrepresent stories constantly. (There are liberal versions of this too with the same but opposite reasoning).

 

One side could say "we should start using mustard gas against our political opponents" and the other could say "you can't do that because it would be inhumane not to mention illegal." CNN would report this as "Washington deadlocked in partisan debate on law enforcement." 

 

Some ideas are dumb and bad, but they get treated with kids gloves -- partly because MSM media have a fear of being labeled elitists, and partly because theoretically in a democratic society, all ideas are equal, and they're trying to serve that ideal and be representative.  Because U.S. politics are divided into the two-party system, we are all under the working assumption that all ideas as equally valid. But this is ridiculous, because not all ideas are equally valid. Some things are wrong. The idea that the sun comes out of the ground every day is obviously wrong, even if we get to a point where a percentage of the public insist that it's true. 

 

To keep this about the Intelligence Community, here's a post from Reddit Politics re: Nunes that sums up what I'm trying to say.

 

 

 

 

Theoretically, yes, you're right, or, I agree.

 

Practically speaking, the NYT and InfoWars have developed their reputations through their body of work. 

 

We can say that someone who can barely bench the bar & someone who can deadlift 300lbs are both equally "bodybuilders" — but we'd be kidding ourselves if we said they are equal in strength when they go into the weight room, even though they're both allowed to use the equipment. 

 

 

I think, genuinely, that it is good to be skeptical about the media, and to be concerned about propaganda. When I was a teacher, I made it a priority for students to "read between the lines." Simply because you are reading something — in a book, online, whatever it is — does not mean it is the objective truth. So in a sense, theoretically anyway, we agree on this principle.

 

The thing I'm cautioning against is propaganda is not simply coming from the government. Our society & system of government is complicated, or more accurately, convoluted. Where does power come from? What gives the officials power? Do they have power, and how is it wielded? What gives the Constitution power? Does it have power? 

 

Theoretically, the answers to most of those would be "the people." In practice, "the people" = "money." 

 

Money talks & money makes propaganda. (Not saying this next sentence is you personally) I've always been puzzled by the right's willingness to believe that, say, George Soros paid for protests, or the Women's March, or whatever else, and equal unwillingness to entertain any ideas about the Mercers, Kochs, or the NRA as thoroughly crooked, corrupting influences — despite the latter examples having clearer and more damning evidence. 

 

I think it comes down to the false equivalency thing I mentioned above. If one brings up the Mercers, Kochs, NRA, then the response is: "George Soros!" — it keeps everything mired in dogmatic, tribalistic ignorance. 

 

 

tl;dr  So I'm just going to assume it makes no sense.

[Deranged Rhino]

47 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Before we get into the weeds — hold up here, Rhino. You began by asking me a pretty invasive question about my age, on a message board where we all enjoy a degree of anonymity. I asked you the same question. You didn't respond. What's up with that? 

 

You did that in the gun thread, too. So this is two times you've endeavored to "get to know me" but both times they were presented in less than good faith. Good faith would be you offering first, then requesting a return, rather than demanding I come toward you with the promise that you'll maybe play fair. You didn't. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but, at the very least, you'll need to return the favor you asked for & tell me how old you are (approximately) + where you were in 2001. 

 

 I answered exactly what you asked when you asked it in the gun thread:

 

On 2/26/2018 at 8:56 PM, LA Grant said:

 

So now you're going to tell me in full where you're coming from on guns, right, Rhino? lol 

 

On 2/26/2018 at 9:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've actually explained where I'm coming from up thread when we first were discussing this. I'm not a gun owner, I'm not a republican or a conservative. I work in the entertainment business, how right wing can I possibly be?  

 

I'm outraged by this tragedy, and the ones that have preceded it, just like everyone else...

 

I didn't answer in this thread because you didn't ask until you falsely accused me of not answering you in a different thread  

 

I was in college in 2001. 

[LA Grant]

7 hours ago, /dev/null said:

My suspicion is that Trump (not just Donald but the Trump Enterprise in general) wanted to break into the media business with a niche conservative outlet.  Donald Trump ran in the Republican primaries for some free publicity.  After dropping out of the Republican field Trump would have kept himself in the headlines for awhile with rumblings of an Independent or 3rd Party bid.  But Trump would announce that rather than taking on the Herculean task of an Independent/3rd Party bid he would stay in public life via his new TV network or online media outlet

 

But a funny thing happened along the way.  He won the Republican nomination.  He likely doubted that he could win the general election so he would have to delay his plans.  In the meantime Trump would have to take a page out of the WWE playbook and at least try to make it look real until November.

 

What Trump, Clinton, and the MSM all failed to comprehend was the general discontent in flyover country and the bipartisan disdain for Hilary Clinton.

 

Trump never planned on actually becoming President

 

There's compelling evidence to support this suspicion from a number of sources. 

 

Michael Wolff's book explored that possibility investigatively with primary sources & inside access. The free excerpt covers it, actually: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html?utm_source=nym_press

 

I'd guess Fire & Fury is probably thoroughly dismissed on this board because Wolff is a flawed author, which — that's fine. I won't get into defending Wolff specifically; there are other sources to support the suspicion that Trump ran on a lark, which can be found through a little Googling. Point is, we can't be 100% sure, and it's always difficult to prove one's motives, so a suspicion is all we can reasonably have.

 

The best evidence that Wolff's work is probably mostly true comes from the George Costanza Theory of Trump: everything he tweets is usually the exact opposite of reality.

 

 

I also suspect that if Trump had successfully won his bid for the Bills, he wouldn't have ran, but who knows. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

 

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 I answered exactly what you asked when you asked it in the gun thread:

 

I didn't answer in this thread because you didn't ask until you falsely accused me of not answering you in a different thread  

 

I was in college in 2001. 

 

I know you answered in the gun thread, I was saying you didn't (initially) answer the question in this thread. To be clear, this was the order of events here:

 

On 3/2/2018 at 2:45 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Just asking this for a reference point - but how old were you in 2001? You don't need to be specific, but were you out of high school? 

 

23 hours ago, LA Grant said:

I'm an adult in his 30s and I was in high school in 2001. How old were you? 

 

21 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

<thoughtful response on the issues BUT no response to age>

 

Anyway. Thanks for answering with your recent post. College in 2001 means you're in your 30s, maybe early 40s? That range? So less than a 10 year gap then. There's the question of "why should this matter to begin with" but I'd rather just move on & discuss the issues.

 

Not trying to be overly pedantic — merely asking for fair play.

[Deranged Rhino]

54 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Anyway. Thanks for answering with your recent post. College in 2001 means you're in your 30s, maybe early 40s? That range? So less than a 10 year gap then. There's the question of "why should this matter to begin with" but I'd rather just move on & discuss the issues.

 

Not trying to be overly pedantic — merely asking for fair play.

 

It matters in relation to the question about the media during 2001. If you were too young to be politically active and/or paying attention to the granular detail then it's not worth me asking you about your positions back then. 

[LA Grant]

43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It matters in relation to the question about the media during 2001. If you were too young to be politically active and/or paying attention to the granular detail then it's not worth me asking you about your positions back then. 

 

Yeah I gotcha. I understood why you were asking. I get the reasoning. Just not why it mattered. Meaning, you could've made the same point without the additional step of asking my age, then my opinion, to make the point that the MSM was complicit in the intelligence community's lies in the lead up to the Iraq War. Not only does it cut down on the annoying back & forth, it keeps the discussion focused on the issue at hand.

 

The reason the questions can "appear" to be in bad faith is because it presumes there'd be a wrong answer to it. As it happens, I was old enough at the time to be following the story, discussing it, and debating it, to the ability one is able in HS, while you were around 5-8 years older following the story in College. But if I was, say, 6 in 2001, instead of in HS, then I'd be in my early 20s now instead of 30s. If that were the case, I would've been too young to have been following the news at that time, but would have still been able to understand your point here either way (theoretically), or would have benefitted from you making the point as it would've then been educational rather than merely rhetorical. If you feel you're capable of sharing your knowledge, it should be "worth" it to do so in a way that is beneficial rather than only self-serving. Similarly, if you were 5-8 years younger than I, that wouldn't mean you shouldn't be entitled to make your point.

 

If it were an effort to merely "get to know me," then the better or more polite way would be to say "I don't know how old you were at the time, but I was in college, and I can say with that experience..." and then on to your point, and still free to request the information. 
 

Why am I droning on about this?

 

I'm not assuming, or trying to not assume, you intended anything other innocent intentions; easy to chalk it up as miscommunication. I'm droning on about the larger idea, which is connected to what we were talking about before in terms of truth & honesty — I oppose the idea that any individual is not entitled to opinions based on physical characteristics or certain qualifications. Those opinions can be wrong, their arguments can be invalid, and people with wrong/invalid opinions aren't entitled to being heard or respected; we're free to disagree, in other words. I imagine we agree on this, so I'm just explaining the reasoning for why one could take issue with questions of age, identity, etc — the question (perhaps unintentionally) implies there's a wrong answer when there really shouldn't be, not on those grounds. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by LA Grant

[Prickly Pete]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeah I gotcha. I understood why you were asking. I get the reasoning. Just not why it mattered. Meaning, you could've made the same point without the additional step of asking my age, then my opinion, to make the point that the MSM was complicit in the intelligence community's lies in the lead up to the Iraq War. Not only does it cut down on the annoying back & forth, it keeps the discussion focused on the issue at hand.

 

The reason the questions can "appear" to be in bad faith is because it presumes there'd be a wrong answer to it. As it happens, I was old enough at the time to be following the story, discussing it, and debating it, to the ability one is able in HS, while you were around 5-8 years older following the story in College. But if I was, say, 6 in 2001, instead of in HS, then I'd be in my early 20s now instead of 30s. If that were the case, I would've been too young to have been following the news at that time, but would have still been able to understand your point here either way (theoretically), or would have benefitted from you making the point as it would've then been educational rather than merely rhetorical. If you feel you're capable of sharing your knowledge, it should be "worth" it to do so in a way that is beneficial rather than only self-serving.

 

If it were an effort to merely "get to know me," then the better or more polite way would be to say "I don't know how old you were at the time, but I was in college, and I can say with that experience..." and then on to your point, and still free to request the information. 
 

Why am I droning on about this?

 

I'm not assuming, or trying to not assume, you intended anything other innocent intentions; easy to chalk it up as miscommunication. I'm droning on about the larger idea, which is connected to what we were talking about before in terms of truth & honesty — I oppose the idea that any individual is not entitled to opinions based on physical characteristics or certain qualifications. Those opinions can be wrong, their arguments can be invalid, and people with wrong/invalid opinions aren't entitled to being heard or respected; we're free to disagree, in other words. I imagine we agree on this, so I'm just explaining the reasoning for why one could take issue with questions of age, identity, etc — the question (perhaps unintentionally) implies there's a wrong answer when there really shouldn't be, not on those grounds. 

 

Are you familiar with the term "blowhard"?

[LA Grant]

12 minutes ago, OJABBA said:

Are you familiar with the term "blowhard"?

 

Of course. "Any person one disagrees with politically" is a blowhard. Pompous, egotistical, talking mad sh*t... yeah, I hear you, I see it. Apologies for offending. So, for you, you'd be... what? A "blowsoft"?  Seems like a good way to describe one who deals out soft blows, or someone who blows off.

 

Blowhard or go home.

Edited March 4, 2018 by LA Grant

[Prickly Pete]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Of course. "Any person one disagrees with politically" is a blowhard. Pompous, egotistical, talking mad sh*t... yeah, I hear you, I see it. Apologies for offending. So, for you, you'd be... what? A "blowsoft"?  Seems like a good way to describe one who deals out soft blows, or someone who blows off.

 

Blowhard or go home.

 

Now that's to the point. Your opinions are fine with me. You present reasoned arguments.

 

The long-winded, overwrought chiding is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by OJABBA

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, OJABBA said:

 

Are you familiar with the term "blowhard"?

He hasn't met a word that he doesn't like.

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He hasn't met a word that he doesn't like.

 

But many, many he doesn't understand.

[/dev/null]

5 hours ago, OJABBA said:

 

Are you familiar with the term "blowhard"?

Every time he looks in the mirror

[Tiberius]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/george-nader-mueller-investigation-united-arab-emirates.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

So did Trump agree to blockade a country in exchange for political donations? 

 

WASHINGTON — George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, has hovered on the fringes of international diplomacy for three decades. He was a back-channel negotiator with Syria during the Clinton administration, reinvented himself as an adviser to the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, and last year was a frequent visitor to President Trump’s White House.

Mr. Nader is now a focus of the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned Mr. Nader and have pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

[Doc]

So when does Mueller start investigating the Clinton Foundation?

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

So when does Mueller start investigating the Clinton Foundation?

The Republicans in congress spent years doing that, and nothing! She released her taxes, too  

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The Republicans in congress spent years doing that, and nothing! She released her taxes, too  

 

Sure.

[Deranged Rhino]

35 minutes ago, Doc said:

So when does Mueller start investigating the Clinton Foundation?

 

 

Sessions and the DOJ have an open investigation as of January into the CF. The 12/21/17 EO targeted multiple Clinton Foundation donors for human rights abuse as well... 

 

The DOJ has multiple Clinton investigations ongoing that most likely will not require a new SC to make noise with:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-authorizes-justice-department-investigating-clinton-foundation/story?id=51135537

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/jeff-sessions-reportedly-ordered-a-uranium-one-redo-investigation-after-prodding-from-trump.html

 

Plus a task force to investigate leaks - which people forget has been ongoing since May: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/jeff-sessions-vows-plug-leaks-launches-probe-intel/

 

And despite the media's claims the past few weeks that IG Horowitz is ONLY investigating the Clinton Email investigation (this is not true, he has a broad mandate and we already know the IG has been interviewing witnesses both the Senate and House committees have not - like Priestap), I'm confident Horowitz's evidence gathering for the past year has been feeding Sessions's investigators this whole time. 

 

 

The Trump / Sessions beef is a sideshow. It's theater. Trump knows what Sessions is doing. Sessions has been extremely busy despite some claiming he's stonewalling or sitting on his hands. You know how you can tell? 

 

Remember this? 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376167-trump-refers-to-sessions-as-mr-magoo-report

 

 

Trump called him Mr. Magoo and everyone took it as an insult... 

 

Anyone old enough to remember watching Mr. Magoo cartoons? What always happened at the end of those cartoons? 

 

Magoo would win. Always. Always. Always. 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

So when does Mueller start investigating the Clinton Foundation?

 

C'mon Doc, that's old news. We have more pressing national issues to contend with, such as President Trump demanding TWO scoops of ice cream for dessert!

 

TWO scoops. That's the kind of issue that shakes our republic to its foundations.

[row_33]

Trump has full blown dementia and is long overdue for a massive heart attack as well, right ?