Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

LOL. It wasn't Sessions and it not going to be Barr.  Not happening.  Too big to fail.

I think this is correct. No way the big players ever get caught up in this, too many entrenched fingers of all stripes stuffing their hands in the til.  We never know anything if Trump loses, he was just the right wild card at the right time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

What a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. 

The American people don't think so

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/429565-poll-majority-trusts-mueller-over-trump

 

Quote

 

A majority of respondents in a new poll say they trust special counsel Robert Mueller's credibility more than they trust President Trump's.

Washington Post/Schar School poll released Tuesday found that 56 percent of Americans surveyed said they view Mueller as more credible, while 33 percent said they trusted the president's version of the facts more.

Fifty-seven percent said the special counsel was more interested in “finding out the truth” than “hurting Trump politically.”

 

 

11 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Leftists be like

 

 

giphy.gif&f=1

 

 

Must be fun to just create and live in your own little fantasy world ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Grateful I spent about a half hour total on this stupid topic the last two years, always for ***** and giggles

 

 

Go back through the first 20 or so pages for fun. :lol: 

 

This feels worth reposting...

 

On 5/19/2017 at 12:42 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I just wanted to add this, though I agree with your overall sentiment:

 

(and this isn't directed at you, just your post sparked it)

 

Dragging this "scandal" down into partisan fighting is exactly the intent of those pushing it. The people on the left and right parroting their chosen narratives aren't doing so out of malice but out of a deep concern for the country.

 

It's the people manipulating the narrative, and triggering the hyper partisanship on both sides, who are the ones to blame. That should be the target of scorn and anger - not our fellow citizens.

 

This isn't a right or left issue, it's not a Trump or anti-trump issue, it's not even Russia vs the US - that's all noise designed to distract. This is about a segment of the IC fighting to preserve the regime change legacy of the past 16 years. Nothing more. If you strip away all the rhetoric, if you strip away all the innuendo, the true motive driving this story becomes clear:

 

1) A segment off the IC wants to preserve the empire (which means more regime change wars) over the country

2) The DNC wants to blame anyone but themselves for their failure in 16.

3) The MSM, who was all in for Hillary, want to save face by giving the people a boogeyman to blame for why their predictions were wrong.

 

Track that back to 2011, long before Trump was relevant, and you'll see all the pieces being aligned for exactly this moment - if not by design than by happy coincidence.

 

I say all to as a reminder now is not the time to give into partisan bickering. This is the time we need to come together as a country to save the republic - not from Russia, not from Trump, but from the unelected powers that are controlling the policies and agendas of this nation. The threat we are all facing is an internal one, not an external one.

 

But it is an existential threat.

 

(still time for that bolded part...)

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

... 

 

if we had a truly honest main stream media these facts would be plastered from wall to wall and the real criminals would be on their way to Gitmo. 

 

23 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The American people don't think so

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/429565-poll-majority-trusts-mueller-over-trump

 

 

Must be fun to just create and live in your own little fantasy world ? 

oh, good. since he is so credible, when his investigation finds there was no Russian collusion behalf of Trump but the real collusion was by Hillary, the DNC and other assorted Dems, the public will undoubtedly have to believe him.

 

:thumbsup:

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Go back through the first 20 or so pages for fun. :lol: 

 

This feels worth reposting...

 

 

(still time for that bolded part...)

 

Just think how much interesting insight, knowledge, and analysis, well ahead of the curve, that we would have missed out on if DR was a fan of any other football team...

:beer:

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

When its finally revealed that there was no collusion,  I might finally tune into the Cockamamie News Network and PMSNBC to see how they'll spin it, or watch them cry like they did on election night 2016

 

They don’t care, they’ll just move on to the next fable 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

Ponder something fellas. If there was no direct evidence would the use of the word "direct" imply that there was indirect evidence? Why not just say there was no evidence?

 

The narrative and fable has to go on

 

they still refuse to accept Trump won

 

it’s so beautiful.....

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Foxx said:

the only real problem with nothing happening is that it opens the door wide for anyone and everyone to blatantly break the law and flaunt it in front of everybody's nose because they know there is going to be no real consequences.

 

i have serious doubts that anything is going to happen also but the above is what i am hanging my hat on that something has to happen. if the rule of law no longer matters, we are done for. hang it up and punt.

That door has been wide open long before any of this and will be long after.  Just not for everyone,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

Ponder something fellas. If there was no direct evidence would the use of the word "direct" imply that there was indirect evidence? Why not just say there was no evidence?

I pay attention to the words used to describe the news of the day.  I always find it interesting how a story can be sold with soft edges.  The Michigan congresswoman, Omar,  "Apologizes for controversial tweets after backlash from Dem leaders" according to NBC. Note no reference to the anti-semetic nature, and from the headline apparently only the dems were upset.  Newsweek was less kind, with a headline that read she was "Slammed for a 'stunningly Anti-Semetic Tweet". 

 

One is "controversial" perhaps something about Courtney Cox being better on Friends than Jennifer Anniston, while the other is pretty clear on the issue. 

 

The business of news, what is released and how is manipulative, misleading and intentional.  It's up to the individual to figure out what they believe. 

 

For what it's worth, I googled "Trump" and the headlines/crawls/videos are a tasty alphabet soup  of such colorful words/phrases as "SLAMS", "ATTACKED", "STARTLING", "BIG LIES", "PRESIDENT BLASTS..." .

 

Duck duck go, on the other hand has an ad for polling data, a link to the DJT Official Site, "TRUMP:SECOND SHUTDOWN UNLIKELY", "RUNNING OUT OF OPTIONS ON BORDER...", links to the Trump real estate page, his Twitter feed, wiki etc.  There is one video link to "TRUMP SLAMS BETO RALLY..." though oddly when I put in Beto no reference to him SLAMMING Trump.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'd think it was common sense someone would trust a person with integrity over a compulsive liar. I mean, duh

Jeff Bozo has integrity?  The guy is a scumbag, as are the writers for his failing paper. They aren't journalists, more like urinelists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...