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

[B-Man]

ROBERT MUELLER IS FACING HIS BIGGEST QUESTION YET: SHOULD HE PROSECUTE THE COVER-UP BEFORE HE’S CERTAIN THERE’S A CRIME?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/mueller-reince-priebus-russia-investigation

[BillsFan4]

OBAMA HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON: The 2016 election wasnt hacked.

 

 

So whats Robert Mueller investigating again?

I didn't even know people actually still thought the election was hacked (I'm not saying some don't, I'm just saying I didn't know that was still a thing with some people). I thought that whole myth was put to bed many moths ago when this whole Russia election thing first started.

 

It was, is and always has been about Russia trying to influence our election so Trump wins.

 

The US intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence) concluded with high probability that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US election (hence why the US issued sanctions against Russia).

 

(If you want any info on that investigation, here's the declassified report from the ODNI "assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections" - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

The thing they are investigating is what, if any, part the Trump campaign played in it.

Edited October 1, 2017 by BillsFan4

[row_33]

A politician lied???????

 

When dont they lie.

 

The crybabies and whiners when the Dems lose are quite amusing.

[Deranged Rhino]

I didn't even know people actually still thought the election was hacked (I'm not saying some don't, I'm just saying I didn't know that was still a thing with some people). I thought that whole myth was put to bed many moths ago when this whole Russia election thing first started.

It was, is and always has been about Russia trying to influence our election so Trump wins.

The US intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence) concluded with high probability that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US election (hence why the US issued sanctions against Russia).

(If you want any info on that investigation, here's the declassified report from the ODNI "assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections" - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

The thing they are investigating is what, if any, part the Trump campaign played in it.

The USIC did NOT make that conclusion with high probability. A small, hand picked task force, led by Clapper and Brennan (in violation of USIC protocol) SPECULATED (their words) it was POSSIBLE.

 

But the media narrative on this issue has always been spun and disingenuous. I suggest poking through the trump Russia thread to see evidence of what I said above.

 

I also suggest you read in full the DNI ICA you posted. It's been proven to be a bullshite report that doesn't say what you think it does. It was also complied with falsified evidence (either knowingly or unknowingly depending on how much slack you want to give proven perjurers and liars like Clapper and Brennan - both of whom have lied before congress on multiple occasions BEFORE this fiasco).

Edited October 1, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[BillsFan4]

The USIC did NOT make that conclusion with high probability. A small, hand picked task force, led by Clapper and Brennan (in violation of USIC protocol) SPECULATED (their words) it was POSSIBLE.

But the media narrative on this issue has always been spun and disingenuous. I suggest poking through the trump Russia thread to see evidence of what I said above.

I also suggest you read in full the DNI ICA you posted. It's been proven to be a bullshite report that doesn't say what you think it does. It was also complied with falsified evidence (either knowingly or unknowingly depending on how much slack you want to give proven perjurers and liars like Clapper and Brennan - both of whom have lied before congress on multiple occasions BEFORE this fiasco).

This is from the declassified documents from the ODNI that I posted the link to above.

 

I'd post more form it but we are only allowed to share a few paragraphs on this site -

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russias goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

 

" We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

 

" We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

 

 

So, maybe I wasn't 100% right about the NSA concluding with high probability on every single issue. It appears they were only moderately confident on one. I apologize for that. But there is plenty of use of the phrase "high probability" in that document, when referring to Russia and their influence of the election (which all of those intelligence agencies signed off on).

 

Here's what Dan Coats said (head of ONDI appointed by Trump) in another interview -

 

"I think it's publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia definitely did try to influence the campaign," Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said during his confirmation hearing in February"

 

Coats and other intelligence leaders reiterated that sentiment on May 11 when they told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they were convinced Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 elections.

 

Here's a snippet of that testimony (click on link for testimony) http://www.npr.org/2017/07/07/535803676/trump-is-less-convinced-about-russian-hacking-than-his-intelligence-chiefs-are

 

Here's another interview with Coats -

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/intelligence-director-says-agencies-agree-russian-meddling-n785481

 

"Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, said Friday there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election...

...Other intelligence agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guards, were not involved, Coats said. But, he added, there was no disagreement inside the intelligence community.

Coats was the fourth Trump administration national security official this week to affirm the American intelligence assessment that Russia was behind the 2016 election interference. All spoke at the Aspen forum, a gathering of government officials, security professionals and journalists."

 

Here's James Comey's statement at that June senate hearing -

 

 

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and and the members of this committee have have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as un-fake as you can possibly get.

 

Here's what Senator Warner (senate intelligence committee) said during James Comey's hearing -

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

 

"Were here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple, not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process our presidential election.

 

Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to us to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership and ultimately in ourselves.

 

And thats not just this senators opinion, it is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and, candidly, as some other colleagues have mentioned, why they were so successful. And, more importantly, we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they cant do it again."

 

 

 

 

From everything I've seen there really doesn't seem to be any debate that Russia interfered. There's no media spin on the direct quotes I posted.

 

I don't see how anyone could prove that the ODNI report is BS when much of the classified information that it contained wasn't released to the public, and (although I haven't extensively researched it) I have seen nothing from any legitimate source that proves it was BS. The entire intelligence community seems to back that report, along with many other government officials and many of them are privy to the classified information it contained. There has been more information that has come out since then, too.

 

Now, this doesn't mean Trump has anything to do with it though and that is not what I am saying at all. But there does seem to be a consensus in the intelligence community on russia trying to interfere in our election. Unless I just missed it, I haven't seen any truly credible sources refuting this.

 

 

I will try to remember to in the Trump Russia thread when I get the chance to check out.

Edited October 1, 2017 by BillsFan4

[Deranged Rhino]

This is from the declassified documents from the ODNI that I posted the link to above.

I'd post more form it but we are only allowed to share a few paragraphs on this site - https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russias goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

" We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."

" We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

So, maybe I wasn't 100% right about the NSA concluding with high probability on every single issue. It appears they were only moderately confident on one. I apologize for that. But there is plenty of use of the phrase "high probability" in that document, when referring to Russia and their influence of the election (which all of those intelligence agencies signed off on).

Here's what Dan Coats said (head of ONDI appointed by Trump) in another interview -

"I think it's publicly known and acknowledged and accepted that Russia definitely did try to influence the campaign," Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said during his confirmation hearing in February"

Coats and other intelligence leaders reiterated that sentiment on May 11 when they told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they were convinced Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 elections.

Here's a snippet of that testimony (click on link for testimony) http://www.npr.org/2017/07/07/535803676/trump-is-less-convinced-about-russian-hacking-than-his-intelligence-chiefs-are

Here's another interview with Coats -https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/intelligence-director-says-agencies-agree-russian-meddling-n785481

"Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, said Friday there is no dissent inside U.S. intelligence agencies about the conclusion that Russia used hacking and fake news to interfere in the 2016 presidential election...

...Other intelligence agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guards, were not involved, Coats said. But, he added, there was no disagreement inside the intelligence community.

Coats was the fourth Trump administration national security official this week to affirm the American intelligence assessment that Russia was behind the 2016 election interference. All spoke at the Aspen forum, a gathering of government officials, security professionals and journalists."

Here's James Comey's statement at that June senate hearing -

There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community, and and the members of this committee have have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as un-fake as you can possibly get.

Here's what Senator Warner (senate intelligence committee) said during James Comey's hearing -https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

"Were here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple, not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process our presidential election.

Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to us to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership and ultimately in ourselves.And thats not just this senators opinion, it is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and, candidly, as some other colleagues have mentioned, why they were so successful. And, more importantly, we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they cant do it again."

From everything I've seen there really doesn't seem to be any debate that Russia interfered. There's no media spin on the direct quotes I posted.

I don't see how anyone could prove that the ODNI report is BS when much of the classified information that it contained wasn't released to the public, and (although I haven't extensively researched it) I have seen nothing from any legitimate source that proves it was BS. The entire intelligence community seems to back that report, along with many other government officials and many of them are privy to the classified information it contained. There has been more information that has come out since then, too.

Now, this doesn't mean Trump has anything to do with it though and that is not what I am saying at all. But there does seem to be a consensus in the intelligence community on russia trying to interfere in our election. Unless I just missed it, I haven't seen any truly credible sources refuting this.

I will try to remember to in the Trump Russia thread when I get the chance to check out.

The document you are citing is flawed and by its authors' own writing does not say what you think it says. Read the document, not the reports which cite the document.

 

The entire intelligence community DOES NOT and never has backed that report. That has been retracted by every outlet - seven months after the fact.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html

 

(I'm not trying to be pedantic or annoying, posting from the road so I can't dig up the links as easily. Will when I get back )

 

Edit 2: after getting back to my hotel I wrote a long edit to this post because you are new down here and I've spilled a lot of digital ink already on this topic. But it didn't post... I'll short hand it:

 

1) I'm not a republican and not a trump guy.

 

2) I have no doubt the Russians used or tried to use propaganda to tilt the election in a way they thought would benefit them. This isn't new. This isn't a serious threat to our country or our elections. It's something every nation does to friends and foes alike, including (especially) the United States of America. This line of thinking is a trap, designed to get us to give up more of our civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us from an "enemy". We gave up our right to privacy and due process in the name of fighting "terrorists", now this line of thinking is trying to get us to give up freedom of speech and the press by censoring content because we need to be protected from information. It's a trick.

 

3) I have serious doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. This was the basis of the DNI/ICA and was the story sold to the public before trump was even sworn in. Propaganda was never a real issue. The hacking of podestas emails was. And now it's been proven that the information and evidence presented in the DNI was falsified to mislead the public. The only piece of concrete evidence offered to the public so far by the USIC was deliberately altered to make their case. This has been proven forensically to be true. And just like the line "all 17 Intel agencies agree" is untrue, so is the foundation of the DNI/ICA.

 

4) Clapper and Brennan broke their own protocols in compiling the ICA. Which is proof they have an agenda.

 

5) Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - in collusion with elements within the MiC and USIC have clear motives to lie about this and all have lied under oath without consequence in the past. Why are they now paragons of truth?

 

6) None of this is meant to be combative. I'm not asking you to trust my word. I'm asking you to do your own digging and see for yourself that what I'm sayin is true. This isn't about politics. This isn't about trump. It's about the USIC and the MiC wanting to continue their agenda of regime change and perma war and they're creating a new "enemy" in order to get their way.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[BillsFan4]

The document you are citing is flawed and by its authors' own writing does not say what you think it says. Read the document, not the reports which cite the document.

The entire intelligence community DOES NOT and never has backed that report. That has been retracted by every outlet - seven months after the fact. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html

(I'm not trying to be pedantic or annoying, posting from the road so I can't dig up the links as easily. Will when I get back )

Edit 2: after getting back to my hotel I wrote a long edit to this post because you are new down here and I've spilled a lot of digital ink already on this topic. But it didn't post... I'll short hand it:

1) I'm not a republican and not a trump guy.

2) I have no doubt the Russians used or tried to use propaganda to tilt the election in a way they thought would benefit them. This isn't new. This isn't a serious threat to our country or our elections. It's something every nation does to friends and foes alike, including (especially) the United States of America. This line of thinking is a trap, designed to get us to give up more of our civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us from an "enemy". We gave up our right to privacy and due process in the name of fighting "terrorists", now this line of thinking is trying to get us to give up freedom of speech and the press by censoring content because we need to be protected from information. It's a trick.

3) I have serious doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. This was the basis of the DNI/ICA and was the story sold to the public before trump was even sworn in. Propaganda was never a real issue. The hacking of podestas emails was. And now it's been proven that the information and evidence presented in the DNI was falsified to mislead the public. The only piece of concrete evidence offered to the public so far by the USIC was deliberately altered to make their case. This has been proven forensically to be true. And just like the line "all 17 Intel agencies agree" is untrue, so is the foundation of the DNI/ICA.

4) Clapper and Brennan broke their own protocols in compiling the ICA. Which is proof they have an agenda.

5) Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - in collusion with elements within the MiC and USIC have clear motives to lie about this and all have lied under oath without consequence in the past. Why are they now paragons of truth?

6) None of this is meant to be combative. I'm not asking you to trust my word. I'm asking you to do your own digging and see for yourself that what I'm sayin is true. This isn't about politics. This isn't about trump. It's about the USIC and the MiC wanting to continue their agenda of regime change and perma war and they're creating a new "enemy" in order to get their way.

Fair enough man. You seem to have done more reading and study on this than I have. I'll have to try looking into this more.

 

 

Just to quickly address that link you provided - it doesn't actually redact that intelligence report. It's only saying that all 17 intelligence agencies didn't put the report out. The main 4 that I originally listed did. But it doesn't change anything about the actual report or that the other 13 disagree with the information contained. Unless the 4 intelligence agencies that worked on it say they were mistaken, then I don't see where that redaction is of all that much significance. It was just something Hillary Clinton said and the left leaning media ran with, which they later redacted.

I haven't seen anything saying that the intelligence community disagrees with that ICA. All those quotes I posted yesterday were from the intelligence community and all of them seemed to universally back that report (and there were many more I didn't post, stating the same thing). If that position has changed since those quotes from June, then I haven't seen it myself and I apologize.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

(not 100% sure on this source, they've been ok in the past but sometimes tend to lean a bit to the left IMO. It explains what I mentioned above pretty well though)

 

Do you have any credible sources saying that these other intelligence agencies actually disagree with the information in that ICA?

 

I did read that ICA by the way, before I posted it.

 

I'll have to dig more into this when I get a chance. I don't watch any of the main news channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc) and try not to focus too much on all this stuff (as it drives me crazy when I do). I've just been kind of waiting for these in depth investigations to finish.

But I hadn't read/heard anything about the Russia info from the IC being in question.

 

Anyway... thanks for the nice response and sorry if I came off as combative in my last post. I also didn't mean it to come off that way.

Edited October 3, 2017 by BillsFan4

[Deranged Rhino]

Anyway... thanks for the nice response and sorry if I came off as combative in my last post. I also didn't mean it to come off that way.

 

It's all good. Your posts didn't come off that way at all to me. I was worried mine was because I was posting on the run and, as everyone here can vouch, am prone to long winded posts wherein my conversational tone/intent gets lost. This is such a politically charged topic that it's easy to misconstrue someone's intent and get sidetracked into partisan bickering. I'm certainly on the fringes of most who post here, but I myself am politically agnostic.

 

Still posting from the road, back at my home base soon, but I wanted to address what I could of your post:

 

Just to quickly address that link you provided - it doesn't actually redact that intelligence report. It's only saying that all 17 intelligence agencies didn't put the report out. The main 4 that I originally listed did. But it doesn't change anything about the actual report or that the other 13 disagree with the information contained. Unless the 4 intelligence agencies that worked on it say they were mistaken, then I don't see where that redaction is of all that much significance. It was just something Hillary Clinton said and the left leaning media ran with, which they later redacted.

 

It's much more than that because the ICA/DNI is NOT the product of four intel agencies, it's the product of a select group of hand picked officers from within those agencies. Why does that matter?

 

After 2003 and the WMD debacle, the intelligence failure was attributed (internally) to have been caused by too little information sharing between intel agencies. That limited information sharing led to a strong case of cognitive dissonance - which grew when there was pressure brought to bear by the White House who wanted to find a reason to go to war in Iraq. This is a mistake we are still paying for today, not just as a nation but as a global community.

 

In order to avoid such mistakes from being repeated, Clapper, Brennan and others in the USIC got together and rewrote the guidelines for investigations of this magnitude. Part of those new guidelines were mandates designed to prevent compartmentalized investigations. This was seen as a necessity to avoid any "political agendas from corrupting our internal investigations" (paraphrased from Clapper himself, testifying to Congress in 2012).

 

The DNI/ICA was not just published by four agencies, it was the work product of a group of under 40 officers - hand picked by Clapper and Brennan - and was not shared prior to its publication with the entirety of any single agency, let alone all 17. The hand picked teams, the way the ICA was compiled were both in direct violations of the guidelines Clapper and Brennan both wrote. This isn't speculation, it's confirmed by the ICA itself.

 

Any officer or analyst who had views DIFFERENT from the ICA's conclusion (a conclusion Brennan and Clapper ordered them to reach - again, the ICA does not hide this, it's spelled out in the document) were not allowed to contribute to the report OR to the media. That's exactly how the WMD debacle happened. And now we're witnessing a repeat of that.

 

Remember, the ONLY piece of evidence offered in the ICA revolves around the hacking of the DNC servers. The issue of propaganda and "fake news" bots were and remain secondary to the primary thrust of the ICA. The ICA's "smoking gun" was the information regarding the DNC hack which the report claimed was absolutely conclusive, without raising any reservations about the document (or the fact that none of the officers who compiled the report even saw the servers for themselves, instead they relied upon second hand information gathered by CrowdStrike - a private firm who has been made rich by their contracts with the DNC over the years). It was this story, the hack of the DNC, that made the "Russians meddled in our election" story BIG NEWS, not the presence of "fake news" bots.

 

The ICA/DNI came out in early January. Two weeks before 45 was sworn in. It was a report that was parroted not by Hillary Clinton, but by every pundit and talking head in the media for seven months. For seven months this document, which we now know contained falsified evidence, was allowed to metacisize in the public's mind for seven months before it was even challenged. The line "all 17 intel agencies agreed with its findings" is not just a little white lie, it's an outrageous misinterpretation of the document itself. The document itself made no bones about how it was compiled, everyone who read it could easily see it was the product of a select group, not the whole intel community, yet the media and talking heads reported it as fact anyway. Either they didn't read it (probable) or they were just following orders to push the agenda (remember, in 2012 the NDAA made it legal for the US Government and its intel agencies to publish propaganda in our own media - this was one of the first uses of that "new" ability).

 

What's NOT in dispute - by me or anyone in the intel community from what I've gathered - is that Russia used propaganda to try to cause chaos during our election process. That's what the intel community agrees upon - NOT the findings of the ICA/DNI which was built almost entirely around the "hacking" of the DNC servers.

 

So, saying the Intel community is in lockstep is true... about the propaganda... but it's 100% untrue about whether or not Russia succeeded in changing a single vote, swaying the election, and certainly they are not in agreement about the hacking of the DNC servers. That's why this situation is so complicated. Nothing is black and white. We are in an information war - not only with Russia, but with our OWN intelligence community.

 

 

I haven't seen anything saying that the intelligence community disagrees with that ICA. All those quotes I posted yesterday were from the intelligence community and all of them seemed to universally back that report (and there were many more I didn't post, stating the same thing). If that position has changed since those quotes from June, then I haven't seen it myself and I apologize.

 

No apologies necessary. It's complicated. And as stated above, a lot of those saying there is agreement within the community are talking about the propaganda - which is not at all the case the ICA/DNI is trying to make.

 

There is no agreement within the community about collusion (in fact, there are far more people within the USIC who think collusion is ridiculous with no evidence than there are who believe it). There is no agreement over Russian hacking anything with regards to the election. There's no agreement that WikiLeaks is a Russian intel cut out. And those, to me (and I think in reality to everyone) are the real issues that people are concerned about.

 

I still remain open to new evidence of any of the above. But so far the only actual evidence that's been given to the American public by the USIC was contained in the ICA and has since been shown to have been tampered with / impossible to be true.

 

I'll also point out that as of today, the NSA has less than 50% confidence that the Russians meddled. The NSA is part of the ICA report, being less than 50% confident in that findings shows that there isn't agreement on the issue within the NSA - let alone the other 3 agencies on the report or the other 12 agencies under the USIC umbrella. Of all the agencies, the NSA (who is tracking in real time all the internet traffic on the planet) would have the most evidence to support this conclusion.

 

Yet they're at 50%. Let that sink in as you go through the rest.

 

 

Do you have any credible sources saying that these other intelligence agencies actually disagree with the information in that ICA?

 

 

I'll post more when I get back to my home base but there are tons of links (credible to me and most) strewn throughout both the Deep State and Trump Russia threads. Look for the VIPs report as well as the YouTube lecture I linked from William Binney earlier in September.

 

I speculate wildly in the Deep State thread but try to not do that in other threads. Still, I've spent the past year and a half researching the intel community for a project I'm doing. Through that research I've been able to form relationships with dozens of officers in several agencies and branches of service. I'm just a random guy on the internet, so I don't expect that to pass for fact (nor would I want it to), but I will say anecdotally that within that group there are a dozen different (informed) opinions on this issue which to me says the men and women in the trenches of these agencies aren't unified.

 

It's just the talking heads and pundits who are pushing an agenda of perma-war who are seemingly in lockstep.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Trump here: "Thanks Vegas. FU Puerto Rico, nobody is listening too, I am golden!"

 

Teflon Donny, aka: Putin's Poodle

[grinreaper]

Trump here: "Thanks Vegas. FU Puerto Rico, nobody is listening too, I am golden!"

 

Teflon Donny, aka: Putin's Poodle

You put it in quotation marks, do you have a link or are you just practicing your usual assclown act?

[DC Tom]

You put it in quotation marks, do you have a link or are you just practicing your usual assclown act?

 

Assclown.

[GG]

I'm quietly hoping that Mueller's investigation finds definitive proof that Putin provided his top technology to Pats* in exchange for keeping the ring.

[IDBillzFan]

You put it in quotation marks, do you have a link or are you just practicing your usual assclown act?

 

You know what's fun? Put him on ignore, and limit yourself to only reading what other people quote from him.

 

You really get a sense of how big of a drunken assclown he is, and then you get a real sense of how much time is wasted responding to his idiocy.

 

Try it. It's fun.

Edited October 4, 2017 by LABillzFan

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

You know what's fun? Put him on ignore, and limit yourself to only reading what other people quote from him.

 

You really get a sense of how big of a drunken assclown he is, and then you get a real sense of how much time is wasted responding to his idiocy.

 

Try it. It's fun.

That's my goal!

 

Doesn't seem to be working though.

 

Have you looked inward yet? Just checking...

[njbuff]

Why isn't Crooked Hillary and her people under investigation?

 

Light years more evidence on them than there is on Trump and his team.

 

But, of course, the Democratic Party gets a free pass to commit crimes, without penalty. Par for the course.

 

Why isn't Jeff Sessions using his power given to him by the President? Is he scared of the Democrats?

 

This is all back asswords and its infuriating to say the least.

[Deranged Rhino]

Why isn't Crooked Hillary and her people under investigation?

 

Light years more evidence on them than there is on Trump and his team.

 

But, of course, the Democratic Party gets a free pass to commit crimes, without penalty. Par for the course.

 

Why isn't Jeff Sessions using his power given to him by the President? Is he scared of the Democrats?

 

This is all back asswords and its infuriating to say the least.

 

Just gonna repost this here because it fits: Just my opinion of course...

 

 

 

IMO it's a mistake to politicize this further. The left/DNC/Hillary have clear agendas, yes. But it's the elements within the USIC who have deliberately pushed false information on the American public in an effort to shape opinions (incorrect opinions) which is the real concern. Don't let them off the hook here by only focusing on scoring partisan points. This isn't about left or right. It's about whether or not we want to live in a country where the will of the people can be undermined by a select few unelected Intelligence Officers.

 

 

That's the true threat to our republic.

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Bobby Three Sticks"

 

Nice! Too funny a nickname.

[Tiberius]

Why isn't Crooked Hillary and her people under investigation?

 

Light years more evidence on them than there is on Trump and his team.

 

But, of course, the Democratic Party gets a free pass to commit crimes, without penalty. Par for the course.

 

Why isn't Jeff Sessions using his power given to him by the President? Is he scared of the Democrats?

 

This is all back asswords and its infuriating to say the least.

What evidence?

 

The Dems are totally out of power, who is giving them this free pass?

 

How is that Ben-by-gazi investigation going?

[BillsFan4]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?435050-1/senate-russia-probe-expanded-looking-possible-collusion

 

Full Press conference from the heads of the senate intelligence committee updating on the Russian election probe.

 

I tried to transcribe the first 5 minutes or so as best I could, since it pertains to the discussion we were having here.

 

It's probably easier to just listen yourself, but here it is anyway -

 

 

They conducted over 250+ hours of interviews, almost 4,000 pages of transcripts, almost 100,000 pages of documents reviewed. It includes highly classified intelligence reporting, emails, campaign documents & technical cyber analysis products. They've held 11 open hearings this year that touched on Russian interference. Their staff has worked 6 to 7 days a week since January to get to the point they are at today.

 

So far in the interview process, they have talked to everybody that had a hand or a voice in the intelligence community assessment. They reviewed all the supporting documents that went into it and in addition the things that were thrown on the cutting room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA itself. They interviewed every official of the Obama administration. They interviewed individuals from around the world.

 

They've come to a general consensus among members and staff that they trust the conclusions of the intelligence community assessment. But they won't close their consideration/investigation of the ICA yet in the unlikelihood that they find additional information through the completion of their investigation.

[grinreaper]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?435050-1/senate-russia-probe-expanded-looking-possible-collusion

 

Full Press conference from the heads of the senate intelligence committee updating on the Russian election probe.

 

I tried to transcribe the first 5 minutes or so as best I could, since it pertains to the discussion we were having here.

 

It's probably easier to just listen yourself, but here it is anyway -

 

 

They conducted over 250+ hours of interviews, almost 4,000 pages of transcripts, almost 100,000 pages of documents reviewed. It includes highly classified intelligence reporting, emails, campaign documents & technical cyber analysis products. They've held 11 open hearings this year that touched on Russian interference. Their staff has worked 6 to 7 days a week since January to get to the point they are at today.

 

So far in the interview process, they have talked to everybody that had a hand or a voice in the intelligence community assessment. They reviewed all the supporting documents that went into it and in addition the things that were thrown on the cutting room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA itself. They interviewed every official of the Obama administration. They interviewed individuals from around the world.

 

They've come to a general consensus among members and staff that they trust the conclusions of the intelligence community assessment. But they won't close their consideration/investigation of the ICA yet in the unlikelihood that they find additional information through the completion of their investigation.

Now there is the rub.