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

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, Logic said:

 

But nah, I'm sure it's just the vicious MSM spewing lies, and there's nothing to see here. Of course.

And from Seth Abramson on Twitter: “I don't think people appreciate yet what's happening. If Trump was secretly working a 9-figure real estate deal with a Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch AFTER he received his August 17, 2016 classified briefing telling him Russia was attacking America—Houston, we have a problem. 2/ Keep in mind Trump KNEW his deal with Rozov involved Kremlin consent because COHEN TOLD HIM SO after speaking repeatedly with Sater. So Trump was *knowingly doing business with active enemies of the US* while promising them the most historically pro-Russia foreign policy ever.”

 

 

If your best source of information is Seth Abramson, you might be an NPC.

 

[Tiberius]

The plea deal indicates that the last known discussion about the deal was “on or about June 14,” 2016, when Cohen told Sater that he was canceling plans to travel to Russia.

Why is that date significant? It happens to be the day The Washington Post broke a big story that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

God knows what you see in Trump. 

 

I didn't vote for him. This has never, ever been about Trump for me. It's always been about whether or not we live in a real democratic republic, one ruled by law - or if we don't. The movement behind "Trump/Russia collusion" is designed to undercut/overthrow a legally elected president because they disagree with the peoples' choice so much, they decided to take matters into their own hands. 

 

That's always what this whole thing has been about. But they've managed to convince you and the Logic's of the world that it's okay to overthrow a legally elected POTUS so long as they paint him as a racist/Nazi/asshat first.

 

But it's not. They're saying your vote doesn't matter. Your voice, doesn't matter. 

 

 

Just now, Tiberius said:

The plea deal indicates that the last known discussion about the deal was “on or about June 14,” 2016, when Cohen told Sater that he was canceling plans to travel to Russia.

Why is that date significant? It happens to be the day The Washington Post broke a big story that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

 

... Or, more accurately, it's when the WaPo began spinning "Russia hacked the DNC" without evidence.... because they were helping to cover up the illegal surveillance abuse discovered by Admiral Rogers in March/April. 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I didn't vote for him. This has never, ever been about Trump for me. It's always been about whether or not we live in a real democratic republic, one ruled by law - or if we don't. The movement behind "Trump/Russia collusion" is designed to undercut/overthrow a legally elected president because they disagree with the peoples' choice so much, they decided to take matters into their own hands. 

 

That's always what this whole thing has been about. But they've managed to convince you and the Logic's of the world that it's okay to overthrow a legally elected POTUS so long as they paint him as a racist/Nazi/asshat first.

 

But it's not. They're saying your vote doesn't matter. Your voice, doesn't matter. 

 

 

 

... Or, more accurately, it's when the WaPo began spinning "Russia hacked the DNC" without evidence.... because they were helping to cover up the illegal surveillance abuse discovered by Admiral Rogers in March/April. 

Lol, ya, ok! 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

You're going to slit your wrists after the report comes out.

Please, tell me you are a hypnotist.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Logic]

 

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The movement behind "Trump/Russia collusion" is designed to undercut/overthrow a legally elected president.

That's just it. There is so, so much smoke around the fire indicating that he was NOT legally elected. We already KNOW that Russia meddled in the election. How, knowing that, can you claim that it was a fair and legal election? How, after a hostile foreign adversary has meddled in the election, can you vouch for its legitimacy?

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

If your best source of information is Seth Abramson, you might be an NPC.

And please, do tell me: which parts of what he said are incorrect or inaccurate?

[Deranged Rhino]

29 minutes ago, Logic said:

That's just it. There is so, so much smoke around the fire indicating that he was NOT legally elected.

 

There's zero, none, nada, zilch evidence that he was not legally elected. None. The fact you are still holding onto that long debunked narrative two years later should be alarming to your critical thinking skills. I mean that with respect.

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, Logic said:

And please, do tell me: which parts of what he said are incorrect or inaccurate?

 

Almost everything Abramson has said on this matter has been without merit or factual basis. But if you mean this specifically:

 

6 hours ago, Logic said:

 

And from Seth Abramson on Twitter: “I don't think people appreciate yet what's happening. If Trump was secretly working a 9-figure real estate deal with a Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch AFTER he received his August 17, 2016 classified briefing telling him Russia was attacking America—Houston, we have a problem.

2/ Keep in mind Trump KNEW his deal with Rozov involved Kremlin consent because COHEN TOLD HIM SO after speaking repeatedly with Sater. So Trump was *knowingly doing business with active enemies of the US* while promising them the most historically pro-Russia foreign policy ever.”

 

1. Cohen plead today that they weren't discussing any part of the deal past June of '16. So this is nonsense to begin with. No part of the Trump Moscow deal is or was illegal. None of it is criminal or indicative of a conspiracy to collude or undermine US interests. It's hype, attached to fear, sold through repetition of the lie. Nothing more.

 

2. Sater is not Russian intelligence or Putin connected. He is, and always has been, a US intelligence asset (and likely organized crime within the US). It's public record he was an FBI informant for Lynch's DOJ. Sater - like Halper - was attempting to dirty a Trump associate up through innuendo on behalf of the FBI. THAT should be alarming to every single American regardless of their opinion on Trump. The FBI (and other IC agencies) were intentionally meddling in the campaign to benefit one side over the other. 

 

There's far more actual evidence for illegal FBI interference/surveillance of a political campaign (without cause) than there is of Trump having been illegally elected with the assistance of the Russians. Seth knows that too. He just thinks you're too stupid to see through the ***** he's selling for 29.99 at every airport in the country. 

[Logic]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There's zero, none, nada, zilch evidence that he was not legally elected. None. The fact you are still holding onto that long debunked narrative two years later should be alarming to your critical thinking skills. I mean that with respect.

You DO admit that Russia interfered in the election by engaging in hacking operations and perpetrating disinformation campaigns against the American people with the objective of getting Donald Trump elected, right? Note: I'm not asking whether you think Trump knew about it or had anything to do with it. But you admit that this interference HAPPENED, yes?

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Let's take this piece by piece. Not to be an ass, but in effort of having a substantive conversation with you: 

 

1 minute ago, Logic said:

You DO admit that Russia interfered  meddled in the election 

 

Interference is very different than meddling. I agree, and have from the beginning, that Russia meddled in the election. There is no debate on that point. There are boxes worth of evidence that substantiate this fact, all of which are available in open source for the public to verify. Conversely, there is zero evidence that any of this meddling was done with the knowledge, consent, or assistance of Trump or his campaign. 

 

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

... by engaging in hacking operations 

 

I do not admit this in any shape. This claim was at the root of my initial interest in this matter because I knew it to be untrue the moment they published the ICA (which has since been exposed not to be worth the cost of the paper upon which it was printed). There are piles of evidence that point to the source of Wikileaks being an internal actor rather than a nation state. This includes, but is not limited to, statements made by Assange himself - the only person who knows for certain his source.

 

7 minutes ago, Logic said:

... and perpetrating disinformation campaigns against the American people 

 

Absolutely. This was how the Russians meddled in the election. It was informational warfare waged using our own first amendment against us. They were not alone, and not very effective in this operation. Many other nation states partook, including China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. This was also not the first campaign in which the Russians or others have done this sort of meddling. 

 

It's what nation states do. To friend and foe alike. 

 

9 minutes ago, Logic said:

... with the objective of getting Donald Trump elected, right?

 

The information campaign sought to create chaos and division on both sides. There's no evidence they favored one over the other in their execution of their operation. In fact, the evidence points the opposite way. Creating chaos and gridlock was and remains the Russians' goal. 

11 minutes ago, Logic said:

Note: I'm not asking whether you think Trump knew about it or had anything to do with it. But you admit that this interference HAPPENED, yes?

 

You're cloaking your question with a ton of "facts" which just aren't true. Which makes your entire question stilted to begin with. That's exactly what people like Abramson get paid to do - lie to you with "facts". 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Let's take this piece by piece. Not to be an ass, but in effort of having a substantive conversation with you: 

 

 

Interference is very different than meddling. I agree, and have from the beginning, that Russia meddled in the election. There is no debate on that point. There are boxes worth of evidence that substantiate this fact, all of which are available in open source for the public to verify. Conversely, there is zero evidence that any of this meddling was done with the knowledge, consent, or assistance of Trump or his campaign. 

 

 

I do not admit this in any shape. This claim was at the root of my initial interest in this matter because I knew it to be untrue the moment they published the ICA (which has since been exposed not to be worth the cost of the paper upon which it was printed). There are piles of evidence that point to the source of Wikileaks being an internal actor rather than a nation state. This includes, but is not limited to, statements made by Assange himself - the only person who knows for certain his source.

 

 

Absolutely. This was how the Russians meddled in the election. It was informational warfare waged using our own first amendment against us. They were not alone, and not very effective in this operation. Many other nation states partook, including China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. This was also not the first campaign in which the Russians or others have done this sort of meddling. 

 

It's what nation states do. To friend and foe alike. 

 

 

The information campaign sought to create chaos and division on both sides. There's no evidence they favored one over the other in their execution of their operation. In fact, the evidence points the opposite way. Creating chaos and gridlock was and remains the Russians' goal. 

 

You're cloaking your question with a ton of "facts" which just aren't true. Which makes your entire question stilted to begin with. That's exactly what people like Abramson get paid to do - lie to you with "facts". 

 

Well, you answered pretty directly. Logic's earlier reference to "smoke" was pretty clearly the set up to his next post which will enlighten all on the "fire". 

 

Because, obviously, Russian meddling could only lead to Trump being elected.  It's been written and said by so many, for so long, it's either that or yet another campaign of disinformation by members of the opposition party and certain members of the media.  As the Russians invented this whole game just a couple short years ago, that simply cannot be true.  Come to think of it, Rasputin is murdered, Princess Anastasia allegedly reappears decades later..then 60+ million vote for Trump. How can that be a coincidence? 

 

I'm on the edge of my seat. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Warren Zevon]

Occam's razor assuming there is not a GRAND CONSPIRACY/#DEEPSTATE - Trump is compromised.

 

Enjoy your weekends. I'm going to Miami.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, peace out said:

Occam's razor assuming there is not a GRAND CONSPIRACY/#DEEPSTATE - Trump is compromised.

 

Enjoy your weekends. I'm going to Miami.

There are Russians in Miami, friend. We'll be watching. 

[Warren Zevon]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There are Russians in Miami, friend. We'll be watching. 

 

Hopefully the Sabres kidnap Dadonov and dress him in blue and gold Monday.

[Deranged Rhino]

58 minutes ago, peace out said:

Occam's razor assuming there is not a GRAND CONSPIRACY/#DEEPSTATE - Trump is compromised.

 

Enjoy your weekends. I'm going to Miami.

 

If there was a lack of evidence to support it, I'd agree. But as I stated above, there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance and criminal activity directed at Trump's campaign (and Sanders) by the DOJ, USIC, and the previous administration... and so far there is zero evidence of Trump/Russia working together to change the election outcome. 

 

So wouldn't logic dictate that when faced with two options - one supported by evidence and the other completely lacking in evidence - you veer towards where the evidence leads rather than towards the path with no evidence to support it (after two plus years of digging)?

 

Have fun in Miami.