Nanker Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 Well, he had a black cloak and a gavel didn’t he?
bdutton Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: How do you know this Treehorn fella isn't a male model on the side? 1
DC Tom Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, bdutton said: How do you know this Treehorn fella isn't a male model on the side? He treats objects like women, man!
Teddy KGB Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 So how big were Muellers sex parties ? Did Swetnick attend a few of them ?
Deranged Rhino Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 ********************************* Worth the time: 1
Deranged Rhino Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 But a troubling whisper has begun inside the Justice Department. “FISAs aren’t required to include exculpatory evidence,” one official told me on background in a recent text message. That emerging sentiment should alarm all of us, no matter our political stripe. A court that excludes legal representation for the accused almost certainly will fail to protect civil liberty if it isn’t allowed to see proof of innocence or evidentiary flaws. Donald Trump may not be the most sympathetic victim. He has the resources to fight back, and the willingness to be bombastic. But what about those who lack either, such as an innocent imam, a wrongly suspected professor, or an unfairly accused global businessman? For those reasons, the silence of the FISC and Chief Justice Roberts is deafening. Enough concern has been raised about the Russia case for the judiciary to offer us an explanation. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/413854-silence-of-the-lambs-the-deafening-quietude-of-the-fisa-court-and-john#.W9jOleulIAw.twitter
boyst Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: But a troubling whisper has begun inside the Justice Department. “FISAs aren’t required to include exculpatory evidence,” one official told me on background in a recent text message. That emerging sentiment should alarm all of us, no matter our political stripe. A court that excludes legal representation for the accused almost certainly will fail to protect civil liberty if it isn’t allowed to see proof of innocence or evidentiary flaws. Donald Trump may not be the most sympathetic victim. He has the resources to fight back, and the willingness to be bombastic. But what about those who lack either, such as an innocent imam, a wrongly suspected professor, or an unfairly accused global businessman? For those reasons, the silence of the FISC and Chief Justice Roberts is deafening. Enough concern has been raised about the Russia case for the judiciary to offer us an explanation. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/413854-silence-of-the-lambs-the-deafening-quietude-of-the-fisa-court-and-john#.W9jOleulIAw.twitter If you connect the pieces you've made with a tin foil hat on you get to something about comprised judges - including Ginsburg. I just can't see anything ever getting that far out of hand that would not lead to a revolution, revolt/anarchy.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: If you connect the pieces you've made with a tin foil hat on you get to something about comprised judges - including Ginsburg. I just can't see anything ever getting that far out of hand that would not lead to a revolution, revolt/anarchy. 60/40 Only 60% will ever be public. 40% will be dealt with in ways that will never be disclosed - but it's still being dealt with. (is my understanding of what we're seeing/will see)
boyst Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: 60/40 Only 60% will ever be public. 40% will be dealt with in ways that will never be disclosed - but it's still being dealt with. (is my understanding of what we're seeing/will see) So, that Ginsburg retiring we hear about is her and others being forced out = lots of new Trumpy judges? I mean, that seems like if you want to make a narrative fit you just find ways to do so with normal trends.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: So, that Ginsburg retiring we hear about is her and others being forced out = lots of new Trumpy judges? I mean, that seems like if you want to make a narrative fit you just find ways to do so with normal trends. Correct, which is the problem with "conspiracy theories/conspiracy thinking" as many have pointed out over the years. And it's a valid point. So far the numbers of resignations we've seen, both in politics and in major corporate gigs is outside the normal trends. In the Congressional sense it's highly outside the normal trends. Which points us to the possibility that something else is happening - but that's not "proof" of anything by itself. For all the reasons stated previously, there will be very public indictments related to FISA abuse, and they'll be big names/titles. This must be done because an example has to be made to make sure this kind of abuse of the surveillance systems is never repeated. Big indictments are a catalyst for changes to the FISC and new oversight procedures which is a very important conversation that we need to have as a country. McCabe, Comey, Yates are easy indictments to make with the evidence already out there in open source and those are high ranking folks inside the DOJ. There will be a few from State who go down as well. If/when that goes down - in combination with the earlier resignations/removals - then you're talking about "proof" of the larger picture. Personally I've said all along they'll go even higher than those fish (I think the secretary level is in play for public indictments), I also suspect many around Trump want to go for 44 as well but that brings us back to your earlier post about how much can you expose without unraveling the entire Republic in the process. The people running the op seem to think it's 60/40. We're about to find out how high they're going to go with this thing. Edited October 30, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 2
Koko78 Posted October 30, 2018 Posted October 30, 2018 55 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: So how big were Muellers sex parties ? Did Swetnick attend a few of them ? Michael Avenatti is going to release a sworn statement soon, outlining how Ms. Swetnick attended 142 rape parties between 1983 (when she stopped going to Kavanaugh's rape parties) and 1987, where she saw Robert Mueller and James Comey passing out green Solo cups to women before waiting outside the bedroom for their turn in the train rapes. Ms. Swetnick didn't accept any "punch" from Mueller, and kept attending the parties until she was, unfortunately, gang raped for the 40th time. Ms. Swetnick wishes for her privacy to be respected and for the media not to contact her. She is available for media interviews any day this week. Her tell-all book will be coming out in mid-november.
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Correct, which is the problem with "conspiracy theories/conspiracy thinking" as many have pointed out over the years. And it's a valid point. So far the numbers of resignations we've seen, both in politics and in major corporate gigs is outside the normal trends. In the Congressional sense it's highly outside the normal trends. Which points us to the possibility that something else is happening - but that's not "proof" of anything by itself. For all the reasons stated previously, there will be very public indictments related to FISA abuse, and they'll be big names/titles. This must be done because an example has to be made to make sure this kind of abuse of the surveillance systems is never repeated. Big indictments are a catalyst for changes to the FISC and new oversight procedures which is a very important conversation that we need to have as a country. McCabe, Comey, Yates are easy indictments to make with the evidence already out there in open source and those are high ranking folks inside the DOJ. There will be a few from State who go down as well. If/when that goes down - in combination with the earlier resignations/removals - then you're talking about "proof" of the larger picture. Personally I've said all along they'll go even higher than those fish (I think the secretary level is in play for public indictments), I also suspect many around Trump want to go for 44 as well but that brings us back to your earlier post about how much can you expose without unraveling the entire Republic in the process. The people running the op seem to think it's 60/40. We're about to find out how high they're going to go with this thing. No matter how much I dislike(d) Obama, I too am of the opinion you probably shouldn't go after a former President. That road leads to a banana republic, even if only in optics. Hillary was/is difficult not only because she was the political opponent of the winning side (and plausible deniability, as well as being steeped in vodka, is a real defense), she is also a former first lady. Why does that matter? Too close to a former President, as well as being that winner's opponent (see: banana republic optics times two). While she is her own (corrupt) person, I could see that going sideways in a public information war. The two-tier justice system we seem to have developed in this country is an abomination - so too is the FISA court. While I understand the theoretical need for it, what it had (has) become is politically corrupted by some very bad people. The only hope is it was a "fool me four times" situation, and closer questioning and less rubber-stamping will occur in the future.
boyst Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 50 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Correct, which is the problem with "conspiracy theories/conspiracy thinking" as many have pointed out over the years. And it's a valid point. So far the numbers of resignations we've seen, both in politics and in major corporate gigs is outside the normal trends. In the Congressional sense it's highly outside the normal trends. Which points us to the possibility that something else is happening - but that's not "proof" of anything by itself. For all the reasons stated previously, there will be very public indictments related to FISA abuse, and they'll be big names/titles. This must be done because an example has to be made to make sure this kind of abuse of the surveillance systems is never repeated. Big indictments are a catalyst for changes to the FISC and new oversight procedures which is a very important conversation that we need to have as a country. McCabe, Comey, Yates are easy indictments to make with the evidence already out there in open source and those are high ranking folks inside the DOJ. There will be a few from State who go down as well. If/when that goes down - in combination with the earlier resignations/removals - then you're talking about "proof" of the larger picture. Personally I've said all along they'll go even higher than those fish (I think the secretary level is in play for public indictments), I also suspect many around Trump want to go for 44 as well but that brings us back to your earlier post about how much can you expose without unraveling the entire Republic in the process. The people running the op seem to think it's 60/40. We're about to find out how high they're going to go with this thing. history will expose obama - that much is clear. those wanting him flogged in the streets are justified because of his brashness and bravado for treating all of his opposition and dissenters like trash. those, like me, who want to see him have to answer for what he allowed, did, and more - if it is as much as some evidence shows - needs to happen. of course, i could see him end up in some horrific accident or get a terminal disease - dude is a heavy smoker - and be gone in as many years as it would take to get his ass. hillary doesn't get in to this simply because she can't. she is of much larger scale then obama. she is much more thoroughly connected worldwide and bringing her down would require such a network of foreign governments and coordination that it just would not happen as ***** up as the world is. the "little fish" you listed, mccabe, yates, comey - and lynch, and holder, and those folks are the ones that will be easy to get. when they start drawing names to obama's cabinet is when this gets more serious and there are not direct ties to them and when there are, and there will be, there will quite honestly be plenty of guys to take the fall. chris carter school of fall guy 101. in a perfect world this ***** is as as synced up as walter white making the hits on the guys in prison. they're all arrested quietly, taken to gitmo to await trial and at that point all of the evidence would have to be out in front of the people. i don't know if i could trust a government that arrested some of its highest ranking members quietly without having 100% access to the facts which i would only skim and then make up for by listening to the big 5 networks - like most americans and then just realize how ***** this situation is - and because of that i don't think anything major will happen and it is a sky fairy damn shame.
Warren Zevon Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060
B-Man Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 45 minutes ago, peace out said: Has Mueller Subpoenaed the President? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060 He cut it close..................... . On 10/14/2018 at 11:35 AM, B-Man said: The only question that I have left is........................ Will Mueller release something to influence the 2018 election .........in November..........or in late October ? The trouble is.............................aint no one buying that BS this time. everyone's made up their minds, on both sides. .
Deranged Rhino Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) Here's the lawyer in question, Stephan Roh More *************** We've covered Burkman at length... And Wohl in some. Both bad guys and working against the interests of the people. Edited October 31, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 1
Deranged Rhino Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 ************** Hmmm A FISA on G-Pap has long been suspected (as well as FISAs on Flynn, Manafort). Despite the bombs which are being dropped by G-Pap on an hourly basis lately, I stand by my assessment that he was a willing participant in the frame-up job until he realized the conspirators were going to let him swing as a patsy. This explains his wife's appearance on the scene (at first slamming Trump) and her 180 on the narrative. 2
Recommended Posts