Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
What was that about a sealed indictment, again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictme
nt-wikileaks.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Considering how badly #Russiagate is going (do they know something ahead of time about the Mueller report that we don't know, like perhaps it's a big fat dud?), and how badly #Brexit is going - well, they needed some distracting happy news for the war mongers.

You know those goalposts that were so important? QUICK!! LOOK OVER THERE INSTEAD!!

And shazaam! Two country's PR nightmares --- solved! At the same time!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Democrats love stomping out whistle blowers.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
For what? The Swedish charges against him were dropped a long time ago. Assange will probably be extradited to the USA for being a journalist and publishing things that the USA deep state would rather he didn't.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-11/julian-assange-arre
sted-after-ecuador-drops-asylum-protection

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Democrats love stomping out whistle blowers.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
It's only Thursday, it's getting late, and here you are - drunk-posting - again. Crap man, you got to cut that out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Democrats love stomping out whistle blowers.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

This is Trump's DOJ. Democrats aren't doing this.

Obama chose to not go after him.

Trump: I love Wikileaks.

Also Trump: I know nohing about Wikileaks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But when Obama waged war on whistle-blowers it was ok?

Let me hear you raise just one objection to Obama's heinous actions. Just one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Read what I wrote. Sound out the words.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Assange's claim that he is a journalist is false, as he has proven time and again. That he is not a journalist, however, will not preclude authoritarian governments from using his case to thwart the legitimate media.

Over time it became evident that his quest for transparency was not universal. Instead, Assange and his group have shown their agenda is anything but that. They are curiously selective in their targets, and their work has hewed closely to Putin's agenda.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/julian-assange-is-an-activist-n
ot-a-journalist/ar-BBVQW3O?ocid=spartandhp

Assange is not a journalist. His activities are limited to attacking democratic countries. He can't be both an activist and a journalist.


T

---

Quote:

---

By the fall of 2017, it was clear that special counsel Robert Mueller, as a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was too conflicted to take a detached look at a Russia-collusion story that had become more about FBI malfeasance than about Donald Trump. The evidence of that bias now stares at us through 448 pages of his report.

President Trump has every right to feel liberated. What the report shows is that he endured a special-counsel probe that was relentlessly, at times farcically, obsessed with taking him out. What stands out is just how diligently and creatively the special counsel’s legal minds worked to implicate someone in Trump World on something Russia- or obstruction-of-justice-related. And how—even with all its overweening power and aggressive tactics—it still struck out.

Volume I of the Mueller report, which deals with collusion, spends tens of thousands of words describing trivial interactions between Trump officials and various Russians. While it doubtless wasn’t Mr. Mueller’s intention, the sheer quantity and banality of details highlights the degree to which these contacts were random, haphazard and peripheral. By the end of Volume I, the notion that the Trump campaign engaged in some grand plot with Russia is a joke.

Yet jump to the section where the Mueller team lists its “prosecution and declination” decisions with regards the Russia question. And try not to picture Mueller “pit bull” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied.

Mr. Mueller’s team mulled bringing charges “for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language,” or “under the general conspiracy statute.” It debated going after them for the “defraud clause,” which “criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government.” It considered the crime of acting as an “agent of a foreign government”—helpfully noting that this crime does not require “willfulness.”

Up to now, the assumption was that Mr. Mueller had resurrected long-ago violations of the rarely enforced Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 purely to apply pressure on folks like Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn. Now we find out that it was resurrected in hopes of applying it to campaign-period actions of minor figures such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

Mueller’s team even considered charging Trump associates who participated with campaign-finance violations for the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Was that meeting “a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban”? Was it “the solicitation of an illegal foreign source contribution”? Was it the receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign source] contribution”? The team considered that the law didn’t apply only to money—it could apply to a “thing of value.”

---

Quote:

---

Until investigators realized it might be hard to prove the “promised documents” exceeded the “$2,000 threshold for a criminal violation.” The Mueller team even credited Democrats’ talking point that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had committed perjury during his confirmation hearings—and devoted a section in the report to it.

As for obstruction—Volume II—Attorney General Bill Barr noted Thursday that he disagreed with “some of the special counsel’s legal theories.” Maybe he had in mind Mr. Mueller’s proposition that he was entitled to pursue obstruction questions, even though that was not part of his initial mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Or maybe it was Mr. Mueller’s long description of what a prosecution of the sitting president might look like—even though he acknowledged its legal impossibility. Or it could be Mr. Mueller’s theory that while “fairness” dictates that someone accused of crimes get a “speedy and public trial” to “clear his name,” Mr. Trump deserves no such courtesy with regard to the 200 pages of accusations Mr. Mueller lodges against him.

That was Mr. Mueller’s James Comey moment. Remember the July 2016 press conference in which the FBI director berated Hillary Clinton even as he didn’t bring charges? It was a firing offense. Here’s Mr. Mueller engaging in the same practice—only on a more inappropriate scale. At least this time the attorney general tried to clean up the mess by declaring he would not bring obstruction charges. Mr. Barr noted Thursday that we do not engage in grand-jury proceedings and probes with the purpose of generating innuendo.

Mr. Mueller may not care. His report suggests the actual goal of the obstruction volume is impeachment: “We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority.”

Note as well what isn’t in the report. It makes only passing, bland references to the genesis of so many of the accusations Mr. Mueller probed:

The infamous dossier produced by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

How do you exonerate Mr. Page without delving into the scandalous Moscow deeds of which he was falsely accused? How do you narrate an entire section on the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting without noting that Ms. Veselnitskaya was working alongside Fusion? How do you detail every aspect of the Papadopoulos accusations while avoiding any detail of the curious and suspect ways that those accusations came back to the FBI via Australia’s Alexander Downer?

The report instead mostly reads as a lengthy defense of the FBI—of its shaky claims about how its investigation began, of its far-fetched theories, of its procedures, even of its leadership. One of the more telling sections concerns Mr. Comey’s firing. Mr. Mueller’s team finds it generally beyond the realm of possibility that the FBI director was canned for incompetence or insubordination. It treats everything the FBI or Mr. Comey did as legitimate, even as it treats everything the president did as suspect.

Mr. Mueller is an institutionalist, and many on his team were the same Justice Department attorneys who first fanned the partisan collusion claims. He was the wrong man to provide an honest assessment of the 2016 collusion dirty trick. And we’ve got a report to prove it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Democrats love stomping out whistle blowers.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

2 funny...


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What's funny about it?

He's not a whistleblower, no matter what the Legacy Media wants you to think.

This was all premeditated partisan hackery, and the details of it all are starting to unravel.



Meanwhile, true whistleblowers and heroes like Assange and Snowden get Democrats trying their damnedest to ruin their lives for their service.


Democrats are absolute shit.

---

Trump, our government and the media disagree with you. They all describe this person as a whistleblower. Oops...
T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What's funny about it?

He's not a whistleblower, no matter what the Legacy Media wants you to think. This was all premeditated partisan hackery, and the details of it all are starting to unravel. Meanwhile, true whistleblowers and heroes like Assange and Snowden get Democrats trying their damnedest to ruin their lives for their service. Democrats are absolute shit.

---

This Jack, this is what's funny about it. And it's your favorite person on the planet explaining what's funny. It's your favorite person on the planet explaining how it's not unraveling at all. Instead she shows how it gets worse daily for your hero. Sorry if facts hurt your head Jack. You could embrace them and get back on track.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Eric CIAramella is not a whistle blower. He's a DNC asset and an Obama / Biden sycophant.

Everyone knows this.

The establishment are trying to gaslight useful idiots and this board is proof there's a gullible populace.

Just like the Mueller report. Just like Jessie Smollett. Just like the Covington Catholic HS kids. Just like the Kavanaugh accusations, etc..


All fake. All contrived and fabricated outrage, w/ the specific intent to sway and anger. Nothing more.

---

Another rube, country bumpkin expressing quaint perceptions even though the facts say otherwise.

tick tock rube

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Eric CIAramella is not a whistle blower. He's a DNC asset and an Obama / Biden sycophant.

Everyone knows this.

The establishment are trying to gaslight useful idiots and this board is proof there's a gullible populace.

Just like the Mueller report. Just like Jessie Smollett. Just like the Covington Catholic HS kids. Just like the Kavanaugh accusations, etc..


All fake. All contrived and fabricated outrage, w/ the specific intent to sway and anger. Nothing more.

---

Another rube, country bumpkin expressing quaint perceptions even though the facts say otherwise.

tick tock rube

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:Another rube, country bumpkin expressing quaint perceptions even though the facts say otherwise.

tick tock rube

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What's funny about it?

He's not a whistleblower, no matter what the Legacy Media wants you to think.

This was all premeditated partisan hackery, and the details of it all are starting to unravel.



Meanwhile, true whistleblowers and heroes like Assange and Snowden get Democrats trying their damnedest to ruin their lives for their service.


Democrats are absolute shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:


Trump, our government and the media disagree with you. They all describe this person as a whistleblower. Oops...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:Another rube, country bumpkin expressing quaint perceptions even though the facts say otherwise.

tick tock rube

---

All the name calling and insults won't save you or make your case for you.

The facts are on my side.

I understand it makes you angry, because the obvious implication is that Trump ( in this case ) continues to be President and all that entails, but that's simply too bad.

Hillary lost.

Get over it.

Trump is your President now.

Accept it. Acknowledge it. Move on.

---

You are a rube because you’re stuck on Hillary. Nothing I’m posting myself or the others here that take issue with Trump are posting has anything to do with Hillary. It’s been that way for a long time now. That’s because she has nothing to do with what’s going on with Trump. Nothing at all. This tells me you are incapable of understanding anything that isn’t pro what you want. It also makes you a rube.

tick tock

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Kiki, all flies eat shit. I was waiting for you to figure that out yourself. Apparently you are incapable of doing so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Kiki, all flies eat shit. I was waiting for you to figure that out yourself. Apparently you are incapable of doing so.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...


Thanks for the laugh!!! It's so funny when you're/your so pompously wrong! That's especially true because a really short trip to google could have told you what you needed to know. But you 'figured' you knew something. And like a lot of your 'knowledge', it was only a false belief. Pompously asserted.



So, no, ALL flies do NOT eat shit!


But since your/you're thinking seems to be very limited, let me explain the phrase to you. A billion flies eat shit. It means that something isn't true JUST BECAUSE a lot of people say-so.

It's a shorter way of illustrating the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum. ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum]

---

Watch out, kiki learned a new word. As usual she thinks it justifies her aversion to the facts; it doesn't. Facts are facts kiki and there's no way around it.

Most people think the mainstream media is a good source of information. They are correct. I believe Trump is a parasite. I am correct as well.

As for some flies existing that don’t eat shit, prove it. As usual you post stuff in lieu of the facts. Links please...

There are elements in urine that drive flies and other pests away but nothing in shit.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Kiki, all flies eat shit. I was waiting for you to figure that out yourself. Apparently you are incapable of doing so.

---