Jump to content

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

26CornerBlitz
 Share

Recommended Posts

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Of course not. She would have started world war 3 by now and would have tons of innocent people who crossed her murdered. She is the corrupt version of the anti-christ and makes Trump look like an honest choirboy. Right Greg?

 

At least answer my questions before you deflect to someone who LOST THE ELECTION AND ISN'T THE !@#$ING PRESIDENT!

 

But she is the Most Qualified Candidate Ever (who couldn't beat a candied yam).

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Deranged Rhino
Deranged Rhino

Powell to 44:  https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

Golden Goat
Golden Goat
Hedge
Hedge

I feel like there just might be a pattern here.   

Posted Images

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

At least answer my questions before you deflect to someone who LOST THE ELECTION AND ISN'T THE !@#$ING PRESIDENT!

You asked stupid questions and made an even dumber statement. Ask better questions and make better statements then maybe I will ;)

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

If DT personally asked the Russians to hack HC email and there were witnesses and video.....would that be enough for you?

 

I'm all for evidence. Real evidence. I've got no loyalty to 45.

 

The problem, as I've been raising, is that so far there's been zero evidence to support the claim that the DNC was hacked by Russia. Do you have any you wish to share? I'll happily read any sources that make that case without couching their claims in unnamed sources citing unknown methods.

 

To your question: if DT just asked the Russians to hack the DNC and the Russians took no action would that be enough for me? No.

If DT colluded and payed the Russians to do so - and then the Russians actually hacked the DNC - then evidence of that fact would be enough for me. Absolutely.

 

The problem is, the only evidence offered to make that claim so far has been proven to have been inaccurate at best, and falsified at worst.

 

Here we are over a year into the investigation and we still have zero evidence that the DNC servers were hacked other than speculations by the USIC. Forensic examination of the "hacked" documents discussed in that report has proven that it would have been physically impossible for those documents to have been attained via a hack. The copy speeds are too fast to the point of breaking the known laws of physics:

 

"Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. "

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

 

"The use of a USB drive would suggest that the person first accessing the data could not have been a Russian hacker. In this case, the person who copied the files must have physically interacted with a computer that had access to what Guccifer 2.0 called the DNC files."

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/

 

Again, this is a report compiled by retired USIC cyber and counter-cyber officers. The same group of folks who got the WMD question right, and called out the MSM and USIC in real time for their blunders, back in the early 2000s. They have a track record of accuracy and men like Binney are legit national heroes - these aren't tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy guys throwing stuff against the wall. They were ignored by the public and the media in 2003. Will we repeat that same mistake? Unlike the DNI, and unlike every news story about the hacking claim, these men and women signed their names to the report and provided verifiable evidence of their claims.

 

Meaning you can verify their work. In every definition of the word, that's real evidence and what it shows is that we are being deceived about this story for some reason. Put your partisanship down just for a moment (please) and really think about what is being proven in these reports:

 

The only real evidence that's been offered to the public, the unclassified DNI pushed by Langley - was either poorly put together or intentionally deceitful. That's the real story of what's happening.

 

The rest of this is political theater that serves only to further muddy the waters for people interested in the truth.

B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

ROD ROSENSTEIN: Mueller needs to come to me if he wants to chase any crime outside scope of Russia probe. “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.”

 

Plus:

 

It has been reported that Mueller’s investigation has expanded to look at the finances of Trump and his associates, giving rise to concerns that Mueller could make it the focus of the probe. Rosenstein seemed to dismiss this issue.

 

Asked if there were no red lines under the terms of his order, Rosenstein said that the investigation is subject to the rules and regulations of the Justice Department.

 

If there’s evidence of a crime that’s found within the scope of what they have agreed, then Mueller has free rein, Rosenstein explained. If it’s outside the scope of the probe, then “he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation,” he added. Rosenstein noted this as a precedent, which was also followed by independent counsel Ken Starr during the Clinton years.

 

Reports have come out over the past couple months about how the probe is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, and that Mueller has impaneled grand juries, capable of issuing subpoenas.

These reports and more have relied on anonymous sources, against whom Rosenstein cautioned could be unreliable.

 

He dubbed these reports, “speculation in the news media.”

 

 

 

Hmm.

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted

I swear I read that as "Russian special agent Robert mueller" :lol:

 

It will be by the end of the news cycle.

26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I swear I read that as "Russian special agent Robert mueller" :lol:

 

:lol:

So?

 

So read the bleepin' article to see that the Chumpster is trying to take a different tact with Mueller after throwing bombs at him via surrogates in a campaign to impugn his integrity for quite some time. Either way it won't matter as he and his staff will continue on with their task.

Doc Brown Hall of Famer

Doc Brown

Posted
Posted

Through his lawyer and it's apparently legal according to the article.... "former federal prosecutors say there are no rules that would prevent a president from passing along messages to the special counsel through an attorney."

 

I would love it if the lawyer's name was John Miller.

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Through his lawyer and it's apparently legal according to the article.... "former federal prosecutors say there are no rules that would prevent a president from passing along messages to the special counsel through an attorney."

 

I would love it if the lawyer's name was John Miller.

 

I'd love it even more if his name was Honus Wagner or Rogers Hornsby.

26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Through his lawyer and it's apparently legal according to the article.... "former federal prosecutors say there are no rules that would prevent a president from passing along messages to the special counsel through an attorney."

 

I would love it if the lawyer's name was John Miller.

 

:lol:

TakeYouToTasker Hall of Famer

TakeYouToTasker

Posted
Posted (edited)

So read the bleepin' article to see that the Chumpster is trying to take a different tact with Mueller after throwing bombs at him via surrogates in a campaign to impugn his integrity for quite some time. Either way it won't matter as he and his staff will continue on with their task.

No, no, I read the link.

 

It's just that you often need to have the things you link explained to you, so when I asked you "So?" I was asking you to explain why you think that's important, or why you think it matters.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

No, no, I read the link.

 

It's just that you often need to have the things you link explained to you, so when I asked you "So?" I was asking you to explain why you think that's important, or why you think it matters.

 

Sure I do. sparky.

I shudder to think where I'd be in life without Mensa caliber thinkers such as yourself. :lol:

Edited by 26CornerBlitz
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...