DC Tom Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ABC count? Doesn't mention the IG report...but Jesus, that's some horrible reporting. Check out the last story link: Quote The New York Times investigates the origin of the Trump campaign and its ties to Russia, igniting the Russia investigation. https://nyti.ms/2rOA7Ht Yes, that's the "Crossfire Hurricane" story. Which ABC clearly didn't read. 1
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 53 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: First one I've seen of Trump that's actually more funny than disturbing.
GaryPinC Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: I've struck up information sharing relationships with a handful of mainstream journos now, and I'm hearing from all of them that they are getting flooding with information over the past 24 hours, all of it on target. When this happened in the past, and the threat against the plotters were close to breaking through to the mainstream, there has been a violent push back used to distract. So, I'm not saying I know anything (I don't) but it wouldn't hurt to remain extra sharp today and tomorrow, all. Hey, DR nice job with all your research and posting here. Not sure all of it will come to pass but it's undeniable we will owe MI a great debt. A lot of this seems predicated on Trump having won the election. How would all this have gone if he would have lost? Or did MI tamper with the election to make sure he won? 1
njbuff Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 In other words......... There are people who are about to be Seth Rich’ed. Of course, the dirt bags in MSM, who are protecting these criminals, for whatever reason, are going to spin Horowitz as some right wing hack.......... all along knowing he was an Obama appointee.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2018 Author Posted May 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Hey, DR nice job with all your research and posting here. Not sure all of it will come to pass but it's undeniable we will owe MI a great debt. A lot of this seems predicated on Trump having won the election. How would all this have gone if he would have lost? Or did MI tamper with the election to make sure he won? I don't believe they tampered - if they did then that would be just as bad as the other way around. What I think they did was keep the other side from tampering and allowed the people to have an unfettered say in the process. I think there will be evidence coming to make that bit clear (or hope there will be) because it's a valid question and concern.
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: I've struck up information sharing relationships with a handful of mainstream journos now, and I'm hearing from all of them that they are getting flooding with information over the past 24 hours, all of it on target. When this happened in the past, and the threat against the plotters were close to breaking through to the mainstream, there has been a violent push back used to distract. So, I'm not saying I know anything (I don't) but it wouldn't hurt to remain extra sharp today and tomorrow, all. I'm about to hop on the Metro, so if you don't hear from me, it's been fun... 1 1
Taro T Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, GaryPinC said: Hey, DR nice job with all your research and posting here. Not sure all of it will come to pass but it's undeniable we will owe MI a great debt. A lot of this seems predicated on Trump having won the election. How would all this have gone if he would have lost? Or did MI tamper with the election to make sure he won? 57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I don't believe they tampered - if they did then that would be just as bad as the other way around. What I think they did was keep the other side from tampering and allowed the people to have an unfettered say in the process. I think there will be evidence coming to make that bit clear (or hope there will be) because it's a valid question and concern. Had Clinton won, how things would've played out would probably have depended on how magnanimous her highness felt. Considering Trump had the audacity to strike at her hard, she probably would've pushed for using those "Russian ties" to have him jailed. Doubt she'd have been very magnanimous at all.
njbuff Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 Love him, hate him, or indifferent......... Hannity’s show tonight will do its best ratings ever as viewers will wait for the “I told you so”. 1
GaryPinC Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I don't believe they tampered - if they did then that would be just as bad as the other way around. What I think they did was keep the other side from tampering and allowed the people to have an unfettered say in the process. I think there will be evidence coming to make that bit clear (or hope there will be) because it's a valid question and concern. Cool, but it was a very close election. Would MI have waited for the next election if trump had lost? Seems like a lot of wrongdoing would have gotten whitewashed and lost in that time.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2018 Author Posted May 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Taro T said: Had Clinton won, how things would've played out would probably have depended on how magnanimous her highness felt. Considering Trump had the audacity to strike at her hard, she probably would've pushed for using those "Russian ties" to have him jailed. Doubt she'd have been very magnanimous at all. Spot on. The secondary reason for the Russian Collusion narrative to be pushed by the DNC was to lock Trump up after the election had she won. That was the plan. 2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Cool, but it was a very close election. Would MI have waited for the next election if trump had lost? Seems like a lot of wrongdoing would have gotten whitewashed and lost in that time. Well, this is where it gets scary in terms of how close we came. I can't speak for certain, because such a thing would lead to more trouble than good, but I've heard from several of the highest sources that I have, who I trust as much as one can trust professional spooks, who have told me there was a plan to use force if needed. The first plan was to do so in 2014 when the bulk of the evidence was uncovered... but they decided to try running Trump and doing it through the system first. Had he lost, we would have undoubtedly seen something kinetic in response. (imo)
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2018 Posted May 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, njbuff said: Love him, hate him, or indifferent......... Hannity’s show tonight will do its best ratings ever as viewers will wait for the “I told you so”. And it will be WELL deserved.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2018 Author Posted May 18, 2018 If PS is talking about this so brazenly now, it's pretty much assured Yates name is going to be be one of the ones referred to Huber for prosecution. And if her name is one of them... that means it's open season on a LOT of big fish. Think Rice. Think Kerry. Think Brennan.
GaryPinC Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Spot on. The secondary reason for the Russian Collusion narrative to be pushed by the DNC was to lock Trump up after the election had she won. That was the plan. Well, this is where it gets scary in terms of how close we came. I can't speak for certain, because such a thing would lead to more trouble than good, but I've heard from several of the highest sources that I have, who I trust as much as one can trust professional spooks, who have told me there was a plan to use force if needed. The first plan was to do so in 2014 when the bulk of the evidence was uncovered... but they decided to try running Trump and doing it through the system first. Had he lost, we would have undoubtedly seen something kinetic in response. (imo) Cool, thanks. Makes sense and yea it's frightening. Any insights as to why they decided on Trump instead of some more likeable political novice? I mean, it would have guaranteed the election.
PearlHowardman Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 5 hours ago, GaryPinC said: Would MI have waited for the next election if trump had lost? Q. What is MI? Note: Donald Trump spent $322 million while Hillary Clinton spent $565 million on their respective 2016 Presidential campaigns. 22 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Any insights as to why they decided on Trump instead of some more likeable political novice? I mean, it would have guaranteed the election. Excellent question.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2018 Author Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, PearlHowardman said: Q. What is MI? Military Intelligence. 3 hours ago, GaryPinC said: Cool, thanks. Makes sense and yea it's frightening. Any insights as to why they decided on Trump instead of some more likeable political novice? I mean, it would have guaranteed the election. I think Trump had several factors working in his favor, at least if I'm MI looking for my candidate to be the legal face of the operation: * Able to self fund his campaign assuring there was no financial compromises on him * He co-existed, for 30+ years, in the elites' circle. Meaning he had first hand knowledge of what (really) is going on and what's at stake. * His entire persona is built around his ability to thrive under a hostile media lens. His skeletons were known by the public (who lauded him for them before they were against them). * Everyone underestimated his ability to connect with people in person, and his chances to connect with a base, but the MI guys running point who have known Trump for years. Plus, there's the reality that whoever they were going to use, by the very nature of what they were doing he/she would become the target of unbelievable scrutiny from every angle. Entire industries (media/entertainment/establishment DC/MiC/USIC) would be using every dirty media trick in the book to smear and make them the enemy. And as we've seen, they'd lie to do it (Russian collusion narrative). Cheat to do it (FISA/Surveillance abuse). They'd run character assassination campaigns to do it (Access Hollywood tape/Stormy). So it wouldn't matter if they chose the most likable candidate in history he/she would become Hitler/Stalin/Putin in the eyes of much of the world thanks to the machine that was going to be employed to propagandize the public. If you're know you're going into a fixed game that would eventually become a brawl in the media, Trump is, in my opinion, the perfect guy. Remember, the point isn't just to win the election. That was the easy part. The point is to do the cleanup that we have been/are about to REALLY see happen. That's the phase of the operation where people start to die. And they have. You need a very specific personality to survive/endure the fight. Edited May 18, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 2
Real News Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 From everyone's favorite news lady... https://saraacarter.com/ig-report-on-clinton-investigation-extremely-long-and-thorough/ The Department of Justice Inspector General has sent what is described as an “extremely long and thorough draft” of the much anticipated report on the FBI and DOJ’s investigation and handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, this reporter has learned. The detailed report on the FBI’s decision making process into the Clinton investigation could lead to possible criminal referrals for some of the officials involved in the case. Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, which is expected to be released within the next three to four weeks to the public, has been turned over to current and former officials for review, as first reported in The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The draft, however, does not include any recommendations for criminal prosecution. If there was any evidence collected by the Inspector General’s office of criminality, Horowitz would then refer the matter to the Department of Justice and submit a criminal referral to prosecutors.
GG Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 28 minutes ago, Real News said: From everyone's favorite news lady... https://saraacarter.com/ig-report-on-clinton-investigation-extremely-long-and-thorough/ The Department of Justice Inspector General has sent what is described as an “extremely long and thorough draft” of the much anticipated report on the FBI and DOJ’s investigation and handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, this reporter has learned. The detailed report on the FBI’s decision making process into the Clinton investigation could lead to possible criminal referrals for some of the officials involved in the case. Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, which is expected to be released within the next three to four weeks to the public, has been turned over to current and former officials for review, as first reported in The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The draft, however, does not include any recommendations for criminal prosecution. If there was any evidence collected by the Inspector General’s office of criminality, Horowitz would then refer the matter to the Department of Justice and submit a criminal referral to prosecutors. Why did you leave out the next paragraph? Quote “It would be up to the Inspector General to make the recommendations but there is an expectation that there will be at least one referral for prosecution,” said a source familiar with the findings, who added that it is not conclusive as the Inspector General’s office never discusses ongoing investigations.
PearlHowardman Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Remember, the point isn't just to win the election. That was the easy part. The point is to do the cleanup that we have been/are about to REALLY see happen. That's the phase of the operation where people start to die. And they have. I don't buy this. Hillary Clinton had such high negatives with regard to honesty and trustworthiness that a Republican jar of pickles could have easily beaten her. Moreover, Barack Obama's legacy is that of Republicans having majorities in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, governors mansions, and State legislatures. Any Republican President succeeding President Barack Obama would have near plenary power to do whatever they want - very quietly. Little media scrutiny, if any. Also, how does former President Bill Clinton asking Donald Trump to essentially run for President play in all of this?
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2018 Posted May 18, 2018 16 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Spot on. The secondary reason for the Russian Collusion narrative to be pushed by the DNC was to lock Trump up after the election had she won. That was the plan. Well, this is where it gets scary in terms of how close we came. I can't speak for certain, because such a thing would lead to more trouble than good, but I've heard from several of the highest sources that I have, who I trust as much as one can trust professional spooks, who have told me there was a plan to use force if needed. The first plan was to do so in 2014 when the bulk of the evidence was uncovered... but they decided to try running Trump and doing it through the system first. Had he lost, we would have undoubtedly seen something kinetic in response. (imo) Why lock up Trump if he loses? What's the motive? 18 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: I don't buy this. Hillary Clinton had such high negatives with regard to honesty and trustworthiness that a Republican jar of pickles could have easily beaten her. Moreover, Barack Obama's legacy is that of Republicans having majorities in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, governors mansions, and State legislatures. Any Republican President succeeding President Barack Obama would have near plenary power to do whatever they want - very quietly. Little media scrutiny, if any. Also, how does former President Bill Clinton asking Donald Trump to essentially run for President play in all of this? You have your very own dedicated personal thread for your crap. Leave it there.
Recommended Posts