SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2018 12:11:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Providing statements from reliable witnesses does no good, because those perfectly run of the mill human beings will be painted as dark moon/black hole operatives and therefore people who will be shot at dawn in the coming purge.

Any news articles I can find from legitimate journalistic sources will be dismissed as 'fake news.' My own beliefs will be denigrated because I'm a 'low information' voter.  Even comments by fellow GOPers will be dismissed as 'RINO' comments.

None of these are sufficient reason to eschew reasoned counterarguments. You act as though Paul is the entirety of your audience.

If you were replying in the comments section of a CTH article, I might concede the point. Not here.

Jun 12, 2018 12:11:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

If your faith in humanity is dwindling because I'm contemptuous of a website, you really didn't have a very robust faith in humanity to begin with, and an anonymous board is probably not a good place for you to be hanging out.

My faith in humanity dwindles because it's becoming harder to find people who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. In this particular case, pertaining to anyone who avoids childish name calling, crying "fake news" to marginalize the opposition, etc. because they've condemned the same when Pres. Trump does it.

As for "life is hard, our time is short" as an excuse for name calling... well... at least it's not "Pres. Trump made me do it". That's something I guess.

[happyhoix]

Jun 12, 2018 14:17:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 12, 2018 12:11:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Providing statements from reliable witnesses does no good, because those perfectly run of the mill human beings will be painted as dark moon/black hole operatives and therefore people who will be shot at dawn in the coming purge.

Any news articles I can find from legitimate journalistic sources will be dismissed as 'fake news.' My own beliefs will be denigrated because I'm a 'low information' voter.  Even comments by fellow GOPers will be dismissed as 'RINO' comments.

None of these are sufficient reason to eschew reasoned counterarguments. You act as though Paul is the entirety of your audience.

If you were replying in the comments section of a CTH article, I might concede the point. Not here.

Jun 12, 2018 12:11:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

If your faith in humanity is dwindling because I'm contemptuous of a website, you really didn't have a very robust faith in humanity to begin with, and an anonymous board is probably not a good place for you to be hanging out.

My faith in humanity dwindles because it's becoming harder to find people who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. In this particular case, pertaining to anyone who avoids childish name calling, crying "fake news" to marginalize the opposition, etc. because they've condemned the same when Pres. Trump does it.

As for "life is hard, our time is short" as an excuse for name calling... well... at least it's not "Pres. Trump made me do it". That's something I guess.

I only get snarky when responding to posts citing the CTH. If anyone posted a comment from some media site that engaged in journalism and I didn't agree with that site's conclusions, I would be happy to make a counter argument (based on links to other media sites offering a different viewpoint). That rarely happens in this thread, it's mostly CTH.

I appreciate you urging everyone to take the high road and be civilized. I'm just not feeling very high minded or civilized, lately, and neither are a lot of other angry citizens. Must be your Canadian nature - what was it Trump said about Canadians? You're meek and mild?   

[dondub]

Wouldn't expect Virgil to back Trudeau on that.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 12, 2018 16:52:14 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I appreciate you urging everyone to take the high road and be civilized. I'm just not feeling very high minded or civilized, lately, and neither are a lot of other angry citizens. Must be your Canadian nature - what was it Trump said about Canadians? You're meek and mild? 

I've met my preaching quota for the day, but forbear one more reflection:

If we aren't exemplars of civility in these uncivil times, who will be?

I read this morning about a well-known actor swearing at Pres. Trump on-stage as he accepted an award, with the audience cheering and applauding. I saw a news site I've never known to resort to name calling hurling epithets at Sen. Chuck Schumer. The same "linguistic kill shots" (as Scott Adams calls them) that Pres. Trump uses to belittle his detractors.

He bears some of the blame for the decline of civility in US politics, but just because our leaders sometimes set poor examples doesn't mean we have to emulate them.

As for Canadian culture: indeed as a general rule we tend to be less confrontational, more apologetic, meeker and milder than Americans. Having said this, it's not a gaping disparity. Think of Canada and the US as two normal distributions separated by, say, half of one standard deviation on the "meek and mild" axis.

[NastyWoman]

Has anyone kept track of the number of name changes of this thread? It is quite impressive!

[Virgil Showlion]

You can't make this stuff up.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court

To wit: As we all know, Mr. Mueller has indicted numerous Russian companies/individuals for skullduggery during the 2016 US election. All is well and good. Except, understandably, the indicted parties aren't playing nice. They have a legal right to defend themselves, and this entitles them to file motions for all evidence both inculpatory and exculpatory. Also not surprising: this entails the US intelligence apparatus ostensibly handing the world their playbook for detecting skullduggery.

The author of the cited blog argues, "I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project."

I don't think Mr. Mueller is quite so bubble-headed, but I do suspect his prosecutors expected more leeway from the courts than they're getting. The crux of the main article is that their efforts to delay disclosure of the evidence have failed and that things will come to a head today when the defendants appear in court, ibid.: "In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire 'Trump collusion' probe."

I feel for the man but at the same time: how is this not an eminently foreseeable consequence of the indictments? And the more pressing question: Who loses, America, America, or America? Does America lose by circumventing due process and proceeding using evidence so super-secret it can't be disclosed to the defendants (a practice condemned by every human rights group from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International) [and assuming a judge will let them]? Or does America lose by handing over the evidence, and with it their cyber playbook--to the Kremlin? Or does America lose by withdrawing the indictments and having its special prosecutor with egg on his face?

All I can say is: what a mess. What a snow leopard of a mess.

[happyhoix]

Jun 13, 2018 9:17:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You can't make this stuff up.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court

To wit: As we all know, Mr. Mueller has indicted numerous Russian companies/individuals for skullduggery during the 2016 US election. All is well and good. Except, understandably, the indicted parties aren't playing nice. They have a legal right to defend themselves, and this entitles them to file motions for all evidence both inculpatory and exculpatory. Also not surprising: this entails the US intelligence apparatus ostensibly handing the world their playbook for detecting skullduggery.

The author of the cited blog argues, "I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project."

I don't think Mr. Mueller is quite so bubble-headed, but I do suspect his prosecutors expected more leeway from the courts than they're getting. The crux of the main article is that their efforts to delay disclosure of the evidence have failed and that things will come to a head today when the defendants appear in court, ibid.: "In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire 'Trump collusion' probe."

I feel for the man but at the same time: how is this not an eminently foreseeable consequence of the indictments? And the more pressing question: Who loses, America, America, or America? Does America lose by circumventing due process and proceeding using evidence so super-secret it can't be disclosed to the defendants (a practice condemned by every human rights group from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International) [and assuming a judge will let them]? Or does America lose by handing over the evidence, and with it their cyber playbook--to the Kremlin? Or does America lose by withdrawing the indictments and having its special prosecutor with egg on his face?

All I can say is: what a mess. What a snow leopard of a mess.

Hmm, well, not sure a blog on a financial website is anything other than 'opinion,' but I went to Bloomburg to see what the original article says.  www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/mueller-seeks-order-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case

I don't agree with the blog writer's opinion that the indictment against Concord was strictly a PR stunt. Mueller's team gave the district court judge detailed information about the case against Concord, but it's more information than what they intended to reveal in court, because if the information was given to the defendants and leaked, it would help foreign intelligence services in Russian while undermining US law enforcement and national security investigations.

I'm comfortable with the district court judge reviewing the information about the case and deciding whether or not to allow the sensitive materials to go through a 'firewall counsel' for the government. Seems like that would adequately protect the rights of Putin's good buddy who runs the catering company that supplies the Kremlin.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 13, 2018 9:17:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You can't make this stuff up.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court

To wit: As we all know, Mr. Mueller has indicted numerous Russian companies/individuals for skullduggery during the 2016 US election. All is well and good. Except, understandably, the indicted parties aren't playing nice. They have a legal right to defend themselves, and this entitles them to file motions for all evidence both inculpatory and exculpatory. Also not surprising: this entails the US intelligence apparatus ostensibly handing the world their playbook for detecting skullduggery.

The author of the cited blog argues, "I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project."

I don't think Mr. Mueller is quite so bubble-headed, but I do suspect his prosecutors expected more leeway from the courts than they're getting. The crux of the main article is that their efforts to delay disclosure of the evidence have failed and that things will come to a head today when the defendants appear in court, ibid.: "In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire 'Trump collusion' probe."

I feel for the man but at the same time: how is this not an eminently foreseeable consequence of the indictments? And the more pressing question: Who loses, America, America, or America? Does America lose by circumventing due process and proceeding using evidence so super-secret it can't be disclosed to the defendants (a practice condemned by every human rights group from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International) [and assuming a judge will let them]? Or does America lose by handing over the evidence, and with it their cyber playbook--to the Kremlin? Or does America lose by withdrawing the indictments and having its special prosecutor with egg on his face?

All I can say is: what a mess. What a snow leopard of a mess.

Yep. In my opinion, and this is my own analysis based on intelligence guided by experience, is that Mueller is in a desperate scramble to deny defendants their absolute legal right to discovery because discovery is going to reveal that Mueller doesn't have any evidence and that is going to be a YUGE embarrassment.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 13, 2018 17:14:29 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 13, 2018 9:17:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You can't make this stuff up.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-12/mueller-scrambles-limit-evidence-after-indicted-russians-actually-show-court

To wit: As we all know, Mr. Mueller has indicted numerous Russian companies/individuals for skullduggery during the 2016 US election. All is well and good. Except, understandably, the indicted parties aren't playing nice. They have a legal right to defend themselves, and this entitles them to file motions for all evidence both inculpatory and exculpatory. Also not surprising: this entails the US intelligence apparatus ostensibly handing the world their playbook for detecting skullduggery.

The author of the cited blog argues, "I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project."

I don't think Mr. Mueller is quite so bubble-headed, but I do suspect his prosecutors expected more leeway from the courts than they're getting. The crux of the main article is that their efforts to delay disclosure of the evidence have failed and that things will come to a head today when the defendants appear in court, ibid.: "In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire 'Trump collusion' probe."

I feel for the man but at the same time: how is this not an eminently foreseeable consequence of the indictments? And the more pressing question: Who loses, America, America, or America? Does America lose by circumventing due process and proceeding using evidence so super-secret it can't be disclosed to the defendants (a practice condemned by every human rights group from Human Rights Watch to Amnesty International) [and assuming a judge will let them]? Or does America lose by handing over the evidence, and with it their cyber playbook--to the Kremlin? Or does America lose by withdrawing the indictments and having its special prosecutor with egg on his face?

All I can say is: what a mess. What a snow leopard of a mess.

Hmm, well, not sure a blog on a financial website is anything other than 'opinion,' but I went to Bloomburg to see what the original article says.  www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/mueller-seeks-order-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case

I don't agree with the blog writer's opinion that the indictment against Concord was strictly a PR stunt. Mueller's team gave the district court judge detailed information about the case against Concord, but it's more information than what they intended to reveal in court, because if the information was given to the defendants and leaked, it would help foreign intelligence services in Russian while undermining US law enforcement and national security investigations.

I'm comfortable with the district court judge reviewing the information about the case and deciding whether or not to allow the sensitive materials to go through a 'firewall counsel' for the government. Seems like that would adequately protect the rights of Putin's good buddy who runs the catering company that supplies the Kremlin.

In criminal court, you can't convict someone without laying out the evidence you've got. There's no such thing as secret evidence provided to the court, or the jury, that the defendant cannot also see. If there are indeed national security implications, then Mueller has one option, and one option only: ask a judge to vacate the indictment and decline to prosecute. That's it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/13/congress-and-potus-will-be-briefed-on-ig-report-noon-tomorrow-public-release-300pm/

POTUS Will Be Briefed On IG Report At Noon Tomorrow; Public Release 3:00 p.m.

I'm less enthusiastic than I otherwise would be because unfortunately a conflicted Rod Rosenstein (who is in full meltdown mode right now and making ridiculous threats to "subpoena" lawmaker's in an attempt to bully his way out of compliance with Congressional oversight. In other words, in response to the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into whether the government has used the Justice Department’s awesome investigative power and authority as a weapon against political adversaries, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to use the Justice Department’s awesome investigative authorities as a weapon against political adversaries.) has had a month to essentially scrub the report. Rosenstein still clings to his position in the process in spite of the fact that he is a central witness in the firing of James Comey, and there's no doubt some of the more damning information has been gently massaged.

Don't get me wrong- there WILL BE BOMBSHELLS- big ones. Jaw-dropping revelations are dead ahead. But like Comey calling the criminal investigation into Hillary's deliberate and illegal use of a private email server to conduct official government business for the purpose of concealing that very communication from the prying eyes of Congressional oversight and public scrutiny- the purposes for which the very laws she violated were written- which became a "matter" at the request of Loretta Lynch in between meeting with the criminal investigation subject's husband on an airport tarmac, or the changing of "gross negligence" at the behest of Peter Strzok to "extremely careless", changes were made. There can be no doubt. 

We'll see what happens.

[Tennesseer]

I've got my protection from trump and paul's IG report analysis tomorrow. How about everyone else?

[happyhoix]

Jun 13, 2018 19:17:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/13/congress-and-potus-will-be-briefed-on-ig-report-noon-tomorrow-public-release-300pm/

POTUS Will Be Briefed On IG Report At Noon Tomorrow; Public Release 3:00 p.m.

I'm less enthusiastic than I otherwise would be because unfortunately a conflicted Rod Rosenstein (who is in full meltdown mode right now and making ridiculous threats to "subpoena" lawmaker's in an attempt to bully his way out of compliance with Congressional oversight. In other words, in response to the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into whether the government has used the Justice Department’s awesome investigative power and authority as a weapon against political adversaries, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to use the Justice Department’s awesome investigative authorities as a weapon against political adversaries.) has had a month to essentially scrub the report. Rosenstein still clings to his position in the process in spite of the fact that he is a central witness in the firing of James Comey, and there's no doubt some of the more damning information has been gently massaged.

Don't get me wrong- there WILL BE BOMBSHELLS- big ones. Jaw-dropping revelations are dead ahead. But like Comey calling the criminal investigation into Hillary's deliberate and illegal use of a private email server to conduct official government business for the purpose of concealing that very communication from the prying eyes of Congressional oversight and public scrutiny- the purposes for which the very laws she violated were written- which became a "matter" at the request of Loretta Lynch in between meeting with the criminal investigation subject's husband on an airport tarmac, or the changing of "gross negligence" at the behest of Peter Strzok to "extremely careless", changes were made. There can be no doubt. 

We'll see what happens.

So, let's see. Comey was wrong to release the info on Hillary's emails just 10 days prior to the election, but there is no proof that action was politically motivated. (So he didn't intend to cause Hillary to lose the election because he was a big Trump supporter).  He was also wrong to make that move without prior approval from his superiors at the FBI - he was insubordinate for acting alone. And 5 or 6 FBI people emailed each other some messages that were biased about Trump.

Are those bombshells?  Is it now time to start lining people up in the street to be shot? Should we burn the FBI to the ground?

[Tennesseer]

I'm waiting for the announcement of the release of all those high level officials, those foreign agents released from Gitmo and Black Ops sites, and how they have been repatriated to their home country and families.  Waiting to hear and read their stories.

I imagine the secret sanitized version of events, prepared by the Conservative Treehouse because only they and their agent(s) had all the scoops, and questionably written so there is no panic or civil war in the United States, now has all the bombshell impact of a second grader's 'Why I Liked Picking Peas In Gran' Ma's Garden' back-to-school report would in the world of intrigue.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

So it appears that the swamp was able to win a superficial victory by declaring that none of the glaringly obviously wrong behavior of the FBI was politically motivated.

But the Declaration doesn't stand up to the facts in the report. The report is one full of politically-motivated FBI agents some named, some not named, acting precisely out of political motivation.

So there's a major disconnect between the narrative or the executive summary and the report itself.

And that's okay, we will let them have their Victory, and we will let them take their lap.

In the meantime, the outside prosecutor John Huber, has been closely shadowing the inspector General for months now. Jeff sessions was able to quietly appoint this man a long time ago, and while Jeff sessions is giving the right fits as he plays Coy about this whole situation, Huber is preparing to prosecute numerous people. Of that you can be certain. We already know about One sealed indictment, and there are certainly others.

It's also important to note that nothing in this report exonerates Hillary or anyone else. It was an investigation of the email investigation. It was not an investigation of the email server itself and Hillary's illegal activity. That investigation is ongoing.

It was also not an investigation of the Russia investigation, nor was it an investigation of Spygate. Although there are Clues throughout the over 500 pages that the Russia investigation had its Origins in partisan hackery.

I am more confident than ever that Jeff sessions and Donald Trump and a team of people named and unnamed are engaged in a very real stealth battle to drain the entire swamp. I think they are operating on many fronts, and there are plants throughout the establishment comma including more than 60 rank-and-file FBI agents ready to testify should they be subpoenaed, which apparently is a requirement. I won't claim to understand that. But apparently agents must be subpoenaed before they can talk about and an any investigations.

[Opti]

<p>So it appears some are going to do the usual spin spin spin because they don't want to acknowledge what was, was much less swampy than Trump and his swamp creatures.</p><p>Trump, shooting to out corrupt Nixon, if he hasn't already. Remember how Nixon lied? </p>

[midjd]

So in our binary set of choices (Trump wins because he's right / the swamp wins because it can't deal with Trump being right) the swamp prevails, eh?

Still marveling over the "heads I win, tails you lose" perspective Trump has instilled in his followers.  

[happyhoix]

Jun 15, 2018 9:15:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So it appears that the swamp was able to win a superficial victory by declaring that none of the glaringly obviously wrong behavior of the FBI was politically motivated.

But the Declaration doesn't stand up to the facts in the report. The report is one full of politically-motivated FBI agents some named, some not named, acting precisely out of political motivation.

So there's a major disconnect between the narrative or the executive summary and the report itself.

And that's okay, we will let them have their Victory, and we will let them take their lap.

In the meantime, the outside prosecutor John Huber, has been closely shadowing the inspector General for months now. Jeff sessions was able to quietly appoint this man a long time ago, and while Jeff sessions is giving the right fits as he plays Coy about this whole situation, Huber is preparing to prosecute numerous people. Of that you can be certain. We already know about One sealed indictment, and there are certainly others.  I wouldn't be surprised if some FBI employees didn't get disciplined or fired for failing to be politically unbiased, since that is a requirement to do that job. Not sure if that will apply to personal emails sent between agents, but I'm sure the FBI knows the answer to that.

It's also important to note that nothing in this report exonerates Hillary or anyone else. It was an investigation of the email investigation. It was not an investigation of the email server itself and Hillary's illegal activity. That investigation is ongoing.  Pretty sure most people understand that. And of course that investigation is ongoing, the GOP's going to keep pounding that dead horse until it's nothing but a greasy spot on the pavement.

It was also not an investigation of the Russia investigation, nor was it an investigation of Spygate. Although there are Clues throughout the over 500 pages that the Russia investigation had its Origins in partisan hackery. Again, pretty sure most of us on this board understand that. I would guess most are at least average, if not above average intelligence, with good reading comprehension.

I am more confident than ever that Jeff sessions and Donald Trump and a team of people named and unnamed are engaged in a very real stealth battle to drain the entire swamp. I think they are operating on many fronts, and there are plants throughout the establishment comma including more than 60 rank-and-file FBI agents ready to testify should they be subpoenaed, which apparently is a requirement. I won't claim to understand that. But apparently agents must be subpoenaed before they can talk about and an any investigations.

I would never doubt your commitment to the narrative that you've outlined for us over the past 18 months or so.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2018 9:15:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I am more confident than ever that Jeff sessions and Donald Trump and a team of people named and unnamed are engaged in a very real stealth battle to drain the entire swamp. I think they are operating on many fronts, and there are plants throughout the establishment comma including more than 60 rank-and-file FBI agents ready to testify should they be subpoenaed, which apparently is a requirement. I won't claim to understand that. But apparently agents must be subpoenaed before they can talk about and an any investigations.

please define "the swamp", because from where i sit, they are neck deep in it.

[Opti]

I think at best some were naïve to think Trump would lessen the corruption. If you knew Trump's history like I do, you expected the corruption to increase. Trump is the swamp. He used to be just a buyer of the system, and now he's probably both. Buyer and man who has been bought.

Just a reminder to those who believed the 'I'm too rich to be bought line'. Most rich folks have to finance their businesses somehow. If you can't find financing in the US, you become beholden to banks in other countries. This is the reality of Trump. The third largest car dealership in the US went down during the credit crisis. Being rich only insulates you if you are just living off investment income and have no need of banks or business partners. Logic should tell you that a rich person is more likely to have more expensive levers that can be put against them.

I don't think Russia needs anything to blackmail Trump with if he is using any of their banks in a significant way. Trump doesn't strike me as someone who has only $100K or less in a foreign bank account. FWIW.

[billisonboard]

Jun 15, 2018 10:05:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...

please define "the swamp", ...

In my reading of postings over the years, I think the shores of the swamp ebb and flow based on the moment so it is impossible to define it with precision. A great example is Trey Gowdy. Depending on his latest statement, he is in or out of the swamp.

[tallguy]

Jun 15, 2018 10:05:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 15, 2018 9:15:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I am more confident than ever that Jeff sessions and Donald Trump and a team of people named and unnamed are engaged in a very real stealth battle to drain the entire swamp. I think they are operating on many fronts, and there are plants throughout the establishment comma including more than 60 rank-and-file FBI agents ready to testify should they be subpoenaed, which apparently is a requirement. I won't claim to understand that. But apparently agents must be subpoenaed before they can talk about and an any investigations.

please define "the swamp", because from where i sit, they are neck deep in it.

It is an amorphous "Not Us", left to everyone to create their own bogeyman.  Or so it seems.

Trump is a cesspool.  Far more disgusting than any swamp.
 

[Opti]

Jun 15, 2018 11:42:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 15, 2018 10:05:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

please define "the swamp", because from where i sit, they are neck deep in it.

It is an amorphous "Not Us", left to everyone to create their own bogeyman.  Or so it seems.

Trump is a cesspool.  Far more disgusting than any swamp.
 

I think some are doubling down on their fantasy of Trump the savior because they are terrified of the truth. Trump is swampier than whatever swamp may have existed before he was elected. He is a wannabe dictator creating his own toxic waste . At least swamps are natural. Trump's evil has been honed over many years.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2018 12:00:00 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 15, 2018 11:42:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It is an amorphous "Not Us", left to everyone to create their own bogeyman.  Or so it seems.

Trump is a cesspool.  Far more disgusting than any swamp.
 

I think some are doubling down on their fantasy of Trump the savior because they are terrified of the truth. Trump is swampier than whatever swamp may have existed before he was elected. He is a wannabe dictator creating his own toxic waste . At least swamps are natural. Trump's evil has been honed over many years.

When he gets his first "pet" snow leopard, then... then we'll know there's nothing left in him to salvage.

[Tennesseer]

trump cannot handle the symbol of America: the bald eagle. 




How the hell is he going to handle a snow leopard.

[happyhoix]

Jun 15, 2018 12:47:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2018 12:00:00 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think some are doubling down on their fantasy of Trump the savior because they are terrified of the truth. Trump is swampier than whatever swamp may have existed before he was elected. He is a wannabe dictator creating his own toxic waste . At least swamps are natural. Trump's evil has been honed over many years.

When he gets his first "pet" snow leopard, then... then we'll know there's nothing left in him to salvage.

Does a stuffed, dead snow leopard count?

Cause I'm pretty sure his big game hungry sons probably bagged one and have it hanging on the wall.

[tallguy]

Jun 15, 2018 12:47:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2018 12:00:00 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think some are doubling down on their fantasy of Trump the savior because they are terrified of the truth. Trump is swampier than whatever swamp may have existed before he was elected. He is a wannabe dictator creating his own toxic waste . At least swamps are natural. Trump's evil has been honed over many years.

When he gets his first "pet" snow leopard, then... then we'll know there's nothing left in him to salvage.

There is more honor in every single snow leopard claw than the entire Trump family.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2018 14:08:12 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 15, 2018 12:47:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

When he gets his first "pet" snow leopard, then... then we'll know there's nothing left in him to salvage.

Does a stuffed, dead snow leopard count?

Cause I'm pretty sure his big game hungry sons probably bagged one and have it hanging on the wall.

I'll have to verify this, but if it's true, they'll forever have a hallowed place in the annals of humanity... and my heart.

May Trump and his righteous sons serve a thousand thousand terms! MAGA FOREVER!

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2018 14:05:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

trump cannot handle the symbol of America: the bald eagle. 




How the hell is he going to handle a snow leopard.

i almost lost my lunch the first time i saw this, i laughed so hard.

the expression on his face is priceless.

he really is kindof a gutless weenie when it comes down to it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

"Never pose with children or animals" - it's kind of showbiz 101. He should know better.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/15/ig-report-fbi-lawyer-1-tashina-gauhar-and-the-huma-weiner-laptop-issues/

IG Report FBI "Lawyer #1 Tashina Gauhar And The Huma Abedin Weiner Laptop Issues

The central IG question is: why didn’t the FBI take immediate action to review 725,000 Clinton-centric emails on the Huma/Weiner laptop? Why did they wait a month before seeking a search warrant? Why were they doing nothing?

With these three basic questions Horowitz enters a matrix of FBI excuses, obtuse claims, he-said/she-said, and ultimately a bunch of statements by the MYE team that simply didn’t make a lick of sense. Or put more diplomatically in IG language: “we found most of the explanations offered for this delay to be unconvincing.” (pg. 324)

IG REPORT pg 324 – By no later than September 29, the FBI had learned virtually every fact that was cited by the FBI in late October as justification for obtaining the search warrant for the Weiner laptop, including that the laptop contained:

-Over 340,000 emails, some of which were from domains associated with Clinton, including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, clintonemail.com, and hillaryclinton.com;

-Numerous emails between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin;

-An unknown number of BlackBerry communications on the laptop, including one or more messages between Abedin and Clinton, indicating the possibility that the laptop contained communications from the early months of Clinton’s tenure;178 and

-Emails dated beginning in 2007 and covering the entire period of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State

The explanations given to the OIG for the FBI’s failure to take immediate action on the Weiner laptop fell into four general categories:

1. The FBI Midyear team was waiting for additional information about the contents of the laptop from NYO, which was not provided until late October.



2. The FBI Midyear team could not review the emails without additional legal authority, such as consent or a new search warrant.



3. The FBI Midyear team and senior FBI officials did not believe that the information on the laptop was likely to be significant.



4. Key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.



The IG walks through each of the four points, and identifies why each of them makes absolutely no sense against events that were taking place at the time. Ending with this summation: Click Link To Article Above

</div></div>