Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONRATE is still stuck in the first stage of grief: denial.

As a reminder of what this thread is about:

MUELLER INVESTAGATION [SIC] IS OVER

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
This won't end well . . . for Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
This won't end well . . . for Trump.

---

Did anybody else just have an episode of Deja Vu?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

The move affords Barr considerable new powers to view and potentially release highly classified material gathered by the FBI and CIA in the course of the Russia investigation.

“As far as I know, it is unprecedented for the president to delegate his authority to declassify to somebody who is not the original classifier,” said Steven Cash, an ex-CIA officer and former chief counsel to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
ADVERTISEMENT

“He’s now in the chain of command with respect to classification between the president and Coats or Haspel or whoever’s information it is,” added Cash, who is now an attorney specializing in national security law at the law firm Day Pitney.

Trump’s move also reflects the growing trust he has in Barr, who has earned praise from the president as a result of his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and decision to open up an inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.

The new declassification powers are limited to materials related to Barr’s inquiry into the Russia probe. The memo released Thursday states that the powers will terminate when Barr leaves his post and will not extend to the next attorney general.

Potential for conflict with intelligence community

Trump is no stranger to conflict with U.S. intelligence agencies, and former officials say his latest move could put the intelligence chiefs in a difficult position.
ADVERTISEMENT

While it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to cooperate with law enforcement investigations, some former officials say it will become problematic if Trump is seen as using the agencies to go after his political enemies.

John Sipher, a retired member of the CIA’s clandestine service, said it could create problems for Haspel and others if the president looks to “scapegoat” officials who collected intelligence that formed the basis for the Russia investigation.

“Hopefully, Barr and people in the national security structure of Justice go about this in a standard way. They can get the information they need,” Sipher said. “If he himself is trying to get specific information to be used by the president for political purposes, then he’s really being irresponsible.”

Some also say that even the threat of declassifying materials could chill existing intelligence sources and make it difficult to cultivate new ones going forward. Foreign partners may also be wary of sending intelligence to the U.S. if they think it could ultimately be made public.

It is unclear to what extent the intelligence agencies were consulted before Thursday’s announcement.
ADVERTISEMENT

Coats said in a statement Friday afternoon he would provide Barr with the “appropriate information” in his review. He also expressed confidence the attorney general would work with the intelligence community “in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk.”

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment, and a CIA spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Barr’s use of the term “spying” has already put him at odds with FBI Director Christopher Wray, who told lawmakers during testimony earlier this month that he wouldn’t use that term to describe lawful FBI investigations. Wray also said he had no evidence “personally” that FBI agents illegally surveilled the Trump campaign.

At the same time, Wray described Barr’s review as appropriate and said he had been in “fairly close contact” with the attorney general to assist him.

Democratic fury meets Republican praise

Democrats, already critical of Barr’s handling of Mueller’s findings, have accused Trump and the attorney general of attempting to politicize the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Some suggested the administration may be looking to selectively release classified material to shape a false narrative.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described Trump’s order in a statement Friday as a "corrupt escalation of the President's intention, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to weaponize and politicize the nation's intelligence and law enforcement entities."

Schiff added that his committee will "conduct vigorous oversight of any steps to selectively reveal and distort classified information, abuse the declassification process, and place at risk sources and methods, thereby weakening our safety and security."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
This won't end well . . . for Trump.

---

Did anybody else just have an episode of Deja Vu?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Are you expecting a bullet in Trump's heart to signal that his reign did not go as he promised? You won't get such a clear denouncement. That only happens on fantasy TV series where the writers make it very clear to the dumbest members in the audience (6ix and Signym) what happened. Game of Thrones had the evil queen knifed in the heart by her lover a moment before she sits down upon the Iron Throne. Melania won't kill Trump in the White House bedroom to signal the end of Trump's reign and the start of Mike Pence's. With Trump, his administration will get more and more chaotic until the dizzy old fool falls down exhausted. His voters won't understand what happened. They will blame the Democrats rather than Trump and shout "Treason!"

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

What I gather from the article that SECONDRATE linked is that the Democrats are shitting bricks because the "intelligence" agencies can no longer keep secret any malfeasnace that they may have been engaged in with Obama, Hillary, MI6, Ukraine and who-knows-who-else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

That's it SIGGY! You've done it! You've cracked the case wide open.

---

Quote:

---

Finally, the utter and sheer arrogance of the DEEP STATE will be forever
and permanently exposed to the world. Finally the Dems will pay for their
villainy and treachery. Well, it had to happen sooner or later. There's no
denying it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey SGG, whatever happened to that post of mine that you said you were going to unpack?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Was that a My Cousin Vinny quote? It sounded like a My Cousin Vinnie quote.

---

Quote:

---

I might be wrong, but I don't think that Sigs has ever said that the Deep State was a Democrat party thing. I would argue her on that if it was her belief.

---

Quote:

---

Sure... Obama and the Clintons were Deep State friendly, but so were the Bushes.

---

Quote:

---

Trump at least seemed to be a sort of wildcard that didn't seem associated or to have been in the pockets of anyone. (I mean, that is, if you didn't buy into the whole Russia/Putin narrative anyhow).

---

Quote:

---

That may or may not have been true, but that was at least the way everything seemed in 2016 and the 24/7 media onslaught by multi-national owned news outlets ever since would seem to at least keep up the illusion that he's not a part of it.

---

Quote:

---

No matter what the history books end up saying about this era of American History, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. 50 years later they're going to re-write it again anyhow, so I figure no point in dwelling on it too much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Was that a My Cousin Vinny quote? It sounded like a My Cousin Vinnie quote.

---

Very good Jack, very good.

Quote:

---

I might be wrong, but I don't think that Sigs has ever said that the Deep State was a Democrat party thing. I would argue her on that if it was her belief.

---

I may be wrong but, neither have I; never uttered a word about Dems being Deep State or that Sigs ever said that.

Quote:

---

Sure... Obama and the Clintons were Deep State friendly, but so were the Bushes.

---

But of course you would say that; plus the very next sentence.......

Quote:

---

Trump at least seemed to be a sort of wildcard that didn't seem associated or to have been in the pockets of anyone. (I mean, that is, if you didn't buy into the whole Russia/Putin narrative anyhow).

---

Of course you would say that he's NOT associated with anyone; or more correctly, that it didn't "seem" to be so. "Seemed" being the key word.
Not wanting to put words into anyone's mouth here, but I don't buy into anything. Common sense and the obvious behavior patterns, those are my keys.
Well, at least when it comes to simplistic narcissistic-like denials. As far
as Obama/Bush/Clinton is concerned; well we all know their guilty. That's
a given. Only Trump is completely pure and clean. As clean as the preachers sheets, of course.

Quote:

---

That may or may not have been true, but that was at least the way everything seemed in 2016 and the 24/7 media onslaught by multi-national owned news outlets ever since would seem to at least keep up the illusion that he's not a part of it.

---

There goes that word "seemed" again. Funny how that keeps cropping up to give
the festivities a Whiter Shade of Pale. All media conservative or otherwise,
all succumb to "seem" "seemed"....ALL. Nobody walks away unscathed. Illusion Jack is the name of the game. Everyone plays and the working stiff is both
the prize and the victim...all play; all except Trump...he's obviously on the
side of the working stiff. Hence the Tax break for the wealthy. Eventually it
will trickle down to the poor stiff groveling in the muck and mud for scraps.
Obviously that's his plan.

Quote:

---

No matter what the history books end up saying about this era of American History, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. 50 years later they're going to re-write it again anyhow, so I figure no point in dwelling on it too much.

---

Yeah, that's what they want. Me, I'll fight thank you very much. Fuck them.
All of them.

But don't dwell on it too much Jack.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Yeah. I did use "seem" a lot.

It was intentional, which apparently went right by you.

---

Quote:

---

He could very well be just another part of the Bush/Obama/Clinton cancer that's been running this nation for 7/8th's of my life now.

---

Quote:

---

I don't trust any of them. I don't trust anybody who works for any of them. I don't trust any politicians. I don't trust the media who reports on them. I'm of the belief that the whole lot of them are working for Global interests and the future of America and the American people are not their primary focus or concern.

---

Quote:

---

All I know is that none of them wanted Trump to be president, and to this day they still don't. Or at least it SEEMS that way.

---

Quote:

---

And with no other apparent alternative at this point. What SEEMS to be is the best alternative currently.

I didn't vote for, and I don't still currently support Trump for what he IS. I did so and still do for what he SEEMS not to be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG, you think that was a "rant"?

It was series of questions. How can a series of questions be a rant? I seem to have a hard time posting to you without you ascribing some emotion to them that isn't there.

So, how about going to that last post which you seem to have understood, the one that you said you were going to unpack? Have you thought about the places that sounded to you like nails on a chalkboard, and figured out what's so discordant about them?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Yeah. I did use "seem" a lot.

It was intentional, which apparently went right by you.

---

Oh, did it now!? So me pointing that out to you, that's what you call it
going "right by" me. Hmmm, well now, that's interesting. Intentional? Really?
Well, you did write it. I'll give you that one.

Nothing gets by me.........see?

---

Quote:

---

He could very well be just another part of the Bush/Obama/Clinton cancer that's been running this nation for 7/8th's of my life now.

---

Quote:

---

The "rain in Spain" dude!

---

Quote:

---

I don't trust any of them. I don't trust anybody who works for any of them. I don't trust any politicians. I don't trust the media who reports on them. I'm of the belief that the whole lot of them are working for Global interests and the future of America and the American people are not their primary focus or concern.

---

Quote:

---

Trust no one

---

Quote:

---

All I know is that none of them wanted Trump to be president, and to this day they still don't. Or at least it SEEMS that way.

---

Quote:

---

Like that really matters.

---

Quote:

---

And with no other apparent alternative at this point. What SEEMS to be is the best alternative currently.

I didn't vote for, and I don't still currently support Trump for what he IS. I did so and still do for what he SEEMS not to be.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, suddenly.........it all makes sense now. You didn't vote for him, but you support him, but it only SEEMS like you're supporting him, and so, he's the
best of all the Globalists.

Got it!

Apparently, we're done.

Phew! Why of course, any fool can follow that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
"Can't charge a sitting president - unconstitutional."

Sorry T - I'm not feeling very positive about this. Mueller was the last adult with any leverage over lyin' Donnie Dump's cheatin' ways. With this statement straight from Mueller, Trump's going to feel even more emboldened - might even go on a law breaking binge. "I told you I could shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight and get away with it!"

And the Dems wouldn't do sh*t about any of this anyway. They love their cushy jobs as much as the Republi-f*cks do.

---

Watch it again G. He strongly refutes Barrs statements regarding the report. He states unequivocally that it is not within the justice departments jurisdiction to charge a sitting president. This contradicts Barr's accretion to congress that it was up to Mueller to charge Trump if there was evidence of a crime.

He made it clear that if he could exonerate the president of wrong doing he would. He said he could not.

He made it clear that while he could not find enough evidence to show the president conspired with the russians, there is a lot of evidence of obstruction, i.e. coverup. Also, remember the obstruction detailed in his report states that evidence was destroyed. Evidence that perhaps showed conspiracy with the Russians. That many questioned lied regarding this.



He effetely erased Trump and Barr's deflections regarding all this since the report came out. He wiped the slate clean. We are back to relying on the report and what congress is capable of doing with it.

tick tock

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

The most important line in Wednesday’s Robert Mueller statement: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did NOT commit a crime, we would have said that.” He did commit a crime, but I can't say that is what Mueller meant.

---

He said the evidence wasn't there to charge conspiracy but strongly suggested it is there concerning obstruction. What he did is to give congress a kick in the ass for their inaction in front of the country. When congress is back in Washington there will be a lot more pressure to act in a more determined way.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

To both T and second: it doesn't matter what Mueller said if no one takes any action. It doesn't matter. Sorry, but that's been the pattern from even before that election. What happened to those bribes/payouts to silence the women he had affairs with? Campaign Fraud! So? Nothing. Guys - we know he's a lying sack of sh*t and a criminal on the order of a mafia Don - that's REALLY OLD NEWS. We also know it's never been much of an occupational hazard *legally* for him yet. He always wriggles out. Put me down as a serious skeptic and in the I'll believe it when I see it group.

---

Nope G, the country won't stand for it now that Mueller came forward and made it clear the president and Barr lied to them. As for all the other things you've pointed out. It's the same justice department that Mueller stated can't indict a sitting president that has to wait until Trumps leaves office to prosecute.

A buck says you're wrong. This shit is going to start moving at a more determined pace. Everyone knows if you keep one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat you end up in the water.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
To both T and second: it doesn't matter what Mueller said if no one takes any action. It doesn't matter. Sorry, but that's been the pattern from even before that election. What happened to those bribes/payouts to silence the women he had affairs with? Campaign Fraud! So? Nothing. Guys - we know he's a lying sack of sh*t and a criminal on the order of a mafia Don - that's REALLY OLD NEWS. We also know it's never been much of an occupational hazard *legally* for him yet. He always wriggles out. Put me down as a serious skeptic and in the I'll believe it when I see it group.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

To both T and second: it doesn't matter what Mueller said if no one takes any action. It doesn't matter. Sorry, but that's been the pattern from even before that election. What happened to those bribes/payouts to silence the women he had affairs with? Campaign Fraud! So? Nothing. Guys - we know he's a lying sack of sh*t and a criminal on the order of a mafia Don - that's REALLY OLD NEWS. We also know it's never been much of an occupational hazard *legally* for him yet. He always wriggles out. Put me down as a serious skeptic and in the I'll believe it when I see it group.

---

The calculation has not changed since Election Day in 2016: Republican Senators will not oppose Trump because they fear losing elections. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona did not run again because of Trump. Corker and Flake hinted a few nasty things about Trump, but they didn't vote in any way to slow him down. The other Republican Senators are even more cowardly. The only way Trump leaves is by losing the 2020 election and the Democrats can help the voters to decide by digging into Trump's tax cheating. That is straightforward enough. The way Trump is acting, he is as guilty as hell of tax fraud.

---

It doesn't depend on the way the senate will vote today. It depends on Trumps approval ratings when the time comes.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

It doesn't depend on the way the senate will vote today. It depends on Trumps approval ratings when the time comes.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

It doesn't depend on the way the senate will vote today. It depends on Trumps approval ratings when the time comes.

---

Remember Trump shutting down the government over the Texas/Mexico Wall? Congress could have overridden Trump in a day, but it didn't because more than half of them are sniveling cowards, afraid of the consequences. The cowards are still there and they are even more frightened of removing Trump from office. They won't do it, no matter what comes out about Trump. But the voters might remove Trump if some of the voters come to their senses.

There is cartoon out this week about the spinelessness of Congress:
www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/27/1860100/-Cartoon-Tomorrow-s-news-to
day

---

I have seen opinions shift as more is made public. I'm not convinced it won't happen.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
And the Dems wouldn't do sh*t about any of this anyway. They love their cushy jobs as much as the Republi-f*cks do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

I have seen opinions shift as more is made public. I'm not convinced it won't happen.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Mueller is faithfully following DOJ policy, but the DOJ policy is just plain wrong. Mueller says that a president can be investigated but neither indicted nor accused. And his argument for not accusing him of a crime is that it would be “unfair” to accuse someone who does not have a courtroom to protest his or her innocence. But that is completely absurd: The president doesn’t have a courtroom to vindicate his innocence only because the DOJ has decided that his office makes him immune from indictment in the first place. It’s a piece of circular reasoning that removes the president from the scope of generally applicable criminal laws.

If the president were to commit a violent federal crime, it would be absurd for the DOJ to remain silent on the matter simply because the president couldn’t be charged.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates that the president is not above the law.

www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644304/robert-mueller-statement-donald-trump-r
ussia

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

The most important line in Wednesday’s Robert Mueller statement: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did NOT commit a crime, we would have said that.” He did commit a crime, but I can't say that is what Mueller meant.

---

He said the evidence wasn't there to charge conspiracy but strongly suggested it is there concerning obstruction. What he did is to give congress a kick in the ass for their inaction in front of the country. When congress is back in Washington there will be a lot more pressure to act in a more determined way.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Let's nobody forget that at the end of the day when the Clinton campaign was made aware that their illegal server was compromised that they proceeded to bleach the system and take hammers to all of their smart phones.

Let's also not forget that John Podesta's creepy ass e-mails weren't hacked at all, but they were downloaded from his phone that he left in a taxi cab.

We still haven't been presented with any actual proof that any hacking came out of Russia. Just because it's in an official document that hasn't gone anywhere, it's still one man's word with zero evidence provided.

But to play the devil's advocate, let's just forget all that and say that somebody in Russia was responsible for the hacking.

So what?

If Clinton hadn't been doing anything illegal in the first place, then she had nothing to worry about. I feel whoever released the data to Wikileaks did the American people a service, whoever it was.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Let's nobody forget that at the end of the day when the Clinton campaign was made aware that their illegal server was compromised that they proceeded to bleach the system and take hammers to all of their smart phones.

Let's also not forget that John Podesta's creepy ass e-mails weren't hacked at all, but they were downloaded from his phone that he left in a taxi cab.

We still haven't been presented with any actual proof that any hacking came out of Russia. Just because it's in an official document that hasn't gone anywhere, it's still one man's word with zero evidence provided.

But to play the devil's advocate, let's just forget all that and say that somebody in Russia was responsible for the hacking.

So what?

If Clinton hadn't been doing anything illegal in the first place, then she had nothing to worry about. I feel whoever released the data to Wikileaks did the American people a service, whoever it was.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

6ixStringJack, none of your crap is illegal. You know it. Trump knows it. Neither of you've got anything on the Democrats or else there would be indictments. But there are 100 indictments against Republicans, Russians, Trump's lawyer, Trump's campaign manager. You said only yesterday you'd stop commenting on my posts. Keep your word.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61954&mid=10766
44#1076644

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I never made any promises. I'm certainly not going to stop arguing my beliefs here. I'm just think I'm done replying to your ceaseless insults that litter every post you make these days.

In fact, the part that I quoted wasn't even written by you. I know that can be hard for some people to figure out, since you never use quotes when you're quoting a source. Maybe after you make a post here that was ripped from another site and not properly quoted you believe that you wrote the stuff yourself?



And as for possible indictments against Democrats, specifically the Clintons, only time will tell. Their well known attempt to destroy all the evidence after the fact suggests that they knew full well that they were breaking the law.

And as for the current indictments against Republicans, I'm all on board with it, just like I've said here a hundred times already. I'm not a Republican, and it makes me smile when any politician or bureaucrat goes to jail and/or loses their ill-earned cushy job. Something else I've said a hundred times here already.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm just think I'm done replying to your ceaseless insults that litter every post you make these days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm just think I'm done replying to your ceaseless insults that litter every post you make these days.

---

Hey! Can I get one of those too, F-head?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You're right Second, it is absurd reasoning. But here's the scoop on what Mueller was talking about:

You're right, there is NO law that says you can't indict a sitting president.
It is a "memo" within the DOJ that says that...a memo. There is, however, in Article 1, a Constitutional law that charges Congress with oversight authority to keep the president in check. Part of the checks and balances written into the Constitution - THE law of the land. That check on the president is the authority to Impeach.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 grants Congress the sole power of Impeachment.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 grants the Senate sole power to try all impeachments. You know, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause.
The Chief justice shall preside. But a two thirds vote is needed to convict.

Perhaps that is why Pelosi is reluctant to impeach, because McConnell will stifle any attempt to impeach Trump. The Senate, in control by Republicans,
are kissing Trump's ring. Mueller's report is clear, the president is a criminal.

My take on this: impeach him and put the ball in the Senate's court. If the evidence is solid, then drop the hot potato on their lap. Then we'll see what happens in 2020.

SGG

---

Right SGG. Pelosi is trying to get more information out because it helps her to make her case that Trump needs to go. The wait is giving some people gastritis.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm just think I'm done replying to your ceaseless insults that litter every post you make these days.

---

Hey! Can I get one of those too, F-head?

---

I know G. I keep telling the troll to shoo but trolls never act reasonably.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm just think I'm done replying to your ceaseless insults that litter every post you make these days.

---

Hey! Can I get one of those too, F-head?

---

I know G. I keep telling the troll to shoo but trolls never act reasonably.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

Democrats taking over the house soon. Prepare to be severely disappointed when nothing happens. :)

---

I predict I am going to make you eat this quote over and over again in the next month and a half. Forget about past that. It will have become redundant by then.

T

---

Good luck with that.

How long do you get to say tick tock before we can make you eat it?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted:
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

---

Let's nobody forget that at the end of the day when the Clinton campaign was made aware that their illegal server was compromised that they proceeded to bleach the system and take hammers to all of their smart phones.

Let's also not forget that John Podesta's creepy ass e-mails weren't hacked at all, but they were downloaded from his phone that he left in a taxi cab.


We still haven't been presented with any actual proof that any hacking came out of Russia. Just because it's in an official document that hasn't gone anywhere, it's still one man's word with zero evidence provided.

But to play the devil's advocate, let's just forget all that and say that somebody in Russia was responsible for the hacking.

So what?

If Clinton hadn't been doing anything illegal in the first place, then she had nothing to worry about. I feel whoever released the data to Wikileaks did the American people a service, whoever it was and regardless of what their motives were.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The Illegal Server you reference was not from the Clinton Campaign, but from the Secretary of State, in collusion with stuttermonkey Obama.

---