Re: State Dept Names Robert Mueller lll Special Council - Told y'all Trump isn't going to Get Away With Cover up.

[Mr. B1ack]

There is no cover-up - just CLAIMS of a cover-up
designed to obscure the REAL cover-up of how
HRC got away with all her felonies.

Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 18:42:34 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html
>
>
>
>Robert Mueller is the best choice, known for his
>integrity and especially his abilities. No one
>can criticize his selection.
>
>We'll finally get to see Trump's taxes.

Probably not.

>The good news for Trump is this means the investigation
>goes behind closed doors and will likely fade
>from the daily press for a good year or more
>as the investigation makes it's way.

Yep. These things can take years.

>But eventually after all the players have
>been investigated last will be the President
>to be questioned by the IC.

It'll go well.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 05/19/2017 06:42 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html
>
>
>
>
> Robert Mueller is the best choice, known for his
> integrity and especially his abilities. No one
> can criticize his selection.

How about the fact that Comey worked for him...?

They very well may be part of an ongoing conspiracy.... that has been
in progress for a decade.

One wants to get rid of TRUMP and so might the other and NO judge can be
trusted as the entire Judiciary are tainted by the Left.

We simply can't trust the past government which is why TRUMP was elected
in the first place. We needed a NON governmental apolitical person.


--
That's Karma

[Jonathan]

On 5/17/2017 10:07 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:

> There is no cover-up - just CLAIMS of a cover-up

Ya ok he fired Comey for being too hard on Clinton.

And he's hiding his taxes because no one wants
to see them, as he said.

That doesn't pass a laugh test.

Trump even admitted on national tv he was thinking
about the Russian investigation when he decided
to fire Comey. He might as well have signed
a confession of obstruction of justice, an
impeachable offense.

Trump's inner circle is a flock of liars
and liars lie because they are covering up
misdeeds.

And even Pence, he was the head of the vetting
team and Flynn told the vetting lawyer he
was under investigation by the FBI at the
time for taking half a million from Turkey.

Yet they hired him anyways, that's Trump
hiring his guy from Moscow no matter what.

You can't get a janitors job at the White House
if your under investigation by the FBI, and
Pence lied about it saying when the news broke
it was the first he'd heard about the Turkey
money. Pence was in charge of the vetting.

I mean every day a new revelation.

Do you know that in the last months of the
Obama administration Obama wanted to arm
the Kurds to take the capital of ISIS, but
since the operation would stretch into the
new administration Obama told Flynn about
his decision to arm the Kurds.

Flynn said no, and Obama didn't send the arms.
Flynn said no while he was under the payroll
of Turkey that adamantly opposes arming the
Kurds.

Flynn stopping the fight against ISIS while under
the pay of a foreign govt, doing the bidding
of that foreign govt,that borders on treason.

Btw Trump last week decided to arm the Kurds
so now the operation to take the capital of
ISIS, Raqqa, is getting underway at last.

> designed to obscure the REAL cover-up of how
> HRC got away with all her felonies.
>

Careless email handling isn't even in the
same ballpark, peanuts compared to what
Trump and his campaign have been doing.
Trump is going to make Nixon look like
a saint.

> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.
>
>

He'll uncover all of the money Trump has
been taking from Russia, probably find
Trump has been helping Russian oligarchs
launder money. The clear evidence for
obstruction can only get him impeached.

All the other stuff will land him in jail
someday.


s

[Jonathan]

On 5/17/2017 10:18 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2017 18:42:34 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Mueller is the best choice, known for his
>> integrity and especially his abilities. No one
>> can criticize his selection.
>>
>> We'll finally get to see Trump's taxes.
>
> Probably not.
>

How can an investigation determine is someone
is compromised by a foreign govt without
see their finances? Money is the first thing
they'll want to see for not just Trump but
all of Trump's Moscow minions.

>> The good news for Trump is this means the investigation
>> goes behind closed doors and will likely fade
>>from the daily press for a good year or more
>> as the investigation makes it's way.
>
> Yep. These things can take years.
>
>> But eventually after all the players have
>> been investigated last will be the President
>> to be questioned by the IC.
>
> It'll go well.
>

Everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is either
a lie or shear bullshit.

EVERYTHING.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/2017 10:18 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017 18:42:34 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Mueller is the best choice, known for his
>>> integrity and especially his abilities. No one
>>> can criticize his selection.
>>>
>>> We'll finally get to see Trump's taxes.
>>
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>
>How can an investigation determine is someone
>is compromised by a foreign govt without
>see their finances? Money is the first thing
>they'll want to see for not just Trump but
>all of Trump's Moscow minions.
>

That question has already been answered. There's nothing there.

That being said, what makes you think YOU will ever get to see
anything? You know, someone being investigated does NOT remove their
right to privacy from prying loons like you.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The good news for Trump is this means the investigation
>>> goes behind closed doors and will likely fade
>>>from the daily press for a good year or more
>>> as the investigation makes it's way.
>>
>> Yep. These things can take years.
>>
>>> But eventually after all the players have
>>> been investigated last will be the President
>>> to be questioned by the IC.
>>
>> It'll go well.
>>
>
>Everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is either
>a lie or shear bullshit.
>
>EVERYTHING.
>

TDS.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:11:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>How can an investigation determine is someone
>>is compromised by a foreign govt without
>>see their finances? Money is the first thing
>>they'll want to see for not just Trump but
>>all of Trump's Moscow minions.
>>
>
>That question has already been answered. There's nothing there.

Nothing - or we'd have had tons of details
already. This is just a politically-motivated
witch-hunt instigated by Obama and HRC
and facilitated by Mr. Comey. I think most
of America already understands this ... it's
only Dem money (likely Soros money)
keeping the ruse going.

Next they'll wanna photograph the buttocks
of Trumps campaign people - looking for
any "Russia-shaped" birthmarks :-)

>That being said, what makes you think YOU will ever get to see
>anything? You know, someone being investigated does NOT remove their
>right to privacy from prying loons like you.

Actually, it'd be illegal to discuss details of
Trumps IRS filings in a public forum. It's all
private info unless HE makes it public. If one
speck of that IRS info escaped to the press
the leakers would be subject to prosecution.
Any prying into his taxes would HAVE to be
done behind doubly-locked doors.

Oh, and Trump had a global biz empire. Why
would Russian money be directly from, or
directly to, his personal accounts ? You'd
more likely be looking for a ten million dollar
entry in a Bulgarian hotel-construction subsidiary
for "cleaning supplies" :-)

[Jonathan]

On 5/19/2017 10:41 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:11:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> How can an investigation determine is someone
>>> is compromised by a foreign govt without
>>> see their finances? Money is the first thing
>>> they'll want to see for not just Trump but
>>> all of Trump's Moscow minions.
>>>
>>
>> That question has already been answered. There's nothing there.
>
> Nothing - or we'd have had tons of details
> already.

Ya mean like Flynn being paid $530,000 from
Turkey and some 30 grand from Russia today?


Without Trump's taxes we have almost no details
about his finances. The investigations are just
beginning.

When Comey testifies soon, that will be
high political drama, as tense as when
Ollie and Poindexter testified over
Iran Contra, more exciting.


Nixon unraveled over two or three years, while
it's taken Trump only one week to go from
almost zero legal jeopardy, to publicly
confessing to obstructing justice.

This last week has seen some one dozen
incriminating revelations, it's almost
unbelievable.

Trump fought the 'law' and the law is
kicking his ass.

This is just a politically-motivated
> witch-hunt instigated by Obama and HRC
> and facilitated by Mr. Comey. I think most
> of America already understands this ... it's
> only Dem money (likely Soros money)
> keeping the ruse going.
>
> Next they'll wanna photograph the buttocks
> of Trumps campaign people - looking for
> any "Russia-shaped" birthmarks :-)
>
>> That being said, what makes you think YOU will ever get to see
>> anything?

Well, during Clinton's impeachment we got to learn
so many personal details it became R-Rated.
If we can learn Clinton came all over Monica's shoulder
instead of in her mouth I think Trump's taxes will
make their way to the public once the investigation
is over.

That is, if Trump makes it that long.

>> You know, someone being investigated does NOT remove their
>> right to privacy from prying loons like you.
>

When you run for President privacy is a thing
of the past. The public has a right to know
just about everything outside the bedroom.
Unless of course your name is Clinton.

I know he's not legally required to release
his taxes, but if credible allegations arise
the people have a right to know if their
president is a crook.

> Actually, it'd be illegal to discuss details of
> Trumps IRS filings in a public forum.

Bullshit. Unless you happen to be the person
that hacked them. Conversations here in usenet
have the very highest level of First Amendment
protection of all, according to the US Supreme
Court.

Anything goes, this is not publishing it's speech.
As if two people were talking to each other in a
living room, the law has nothing at all to say about
what is discussed on usenet outside the obvious
like conspiring to commit some crime and so on.

It's all
> private info unless HE makes it public.

Once it's leaked to the public, the public
can talk about it all they like.

It's illegal for the leaker, not for the recipient.
That's why reporters aren't jailed for printing
leaked information even if it's classified.

If one
> speck of that IRS info escaped to the press
> the leakers would be subject to prosecution.
> Any prying into his taxes would HAVE to be
> done behind doubly-locked doors.
>
> Oh, and Trump had a global biz empire. Why
> would Russian money be directly from, or
> directly to, his personal accounts ?

After Trump's two bankruptcies he could no longer
get loans from ANY US banks, and real estate deals
need huge loans. Yet his deals continued.

The presumption, given substance by Donald Jr
bragging about how much Russian money was
'pouring in', is that Trump for several years
was forced to borrow from dubious sources
such as Russian oligarchs.

And if true, Putin would know all that and be
able to threaten to release those financial
vulnerabilities, essentially having the
ability to blackmail Trump.

And Trump's irrational obsession with praising
and excusing Putin at every turn only makes
that presumption appear credible.

His taxes would answer all that, either way.

And now firing Comey in the idiotic assumption
that would somehow end the Russian investigation
is just the icing on the case.

You'd
> more likely be looking for a ten million dollar
> entry in a Bulgarian hotel-construction subsidiary
> for "cleaning supplies" :-)
>
>

He could have ended the suspicion easily
be releasing his taxes, and showing all
the speculation is wrong.

But now that he attempted to obstruct justice
and admitted it publicly, that ship has sailed.
Even if his finances are clean, he's still sunk.

And it was his own big mouth that sunk him.
The guy is stupid or something.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 23:26:36 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/19/2017 10:41 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:11:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> How can an investigation determine is someone
>>>> is compromised by a foreign govt without
>>>> see their finances? Money is the first thing
>>>> they'll want to see for not just Trump but
>>>> all of Trump's Moscow minions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That question has already been answered. There's nothing there.
>>
>> Nothing - or we'd have had tons of details
>> already.
>
>
>
>Ya mean like Flynn being paid $530,000 from
>Turkey and some 30 grand from Russia today?

How much was Obama paid by Wall Street the
other day ? :-)

Oh, and Turkey is one of our NATO allies ...

>Without Trump's taxes we have almost no details
>about his finances. The investigations are just
>beginning.

He has a big biz empire. Do you think any Russian
payoff would have been to/from his personal accounts ?

Ain't gonna happen. You just want his tax statements
so you can invent some 'scandal' by malinterpreting
the figures.

KEEP 'EM PRIVATE Mr. Trump !

>When Comey testifies soon, that will be
>high political drama, as tense as when
>Ollie and Poindexter testified over
>Iran Contra, more exciting.

Comey is Hillary's bitch. That's been clear for
a long time. Maybe we'd better check HIS taxes
to see how big the bribes were ...

>Nixon unraveled over two or three years, while
>it's taken Trump only one week to go from
>almost zero legal jeopardy, to publicly
>confessing to obstructing justice.

No "obstruction" whatsoever.

>This last week has seen some one dozen
>incriminating revelations, it's almost
>unbelievable.
>
>Trump fought the 'law' and the law is
>kicking his ass.

No, the Dems are just trying to emulate
Joe McCarthy.

Everybody knows this.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/19/2017 10:41 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:11:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can an investigation determine is someone
>>>> is compromised by a foreign govt without
>>>> see their finances? Money is the first thing
>>>> they'll want to see for not just Trump but
>>>> all of Trump's Moscow minions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That question has already been answered. There's nothing there.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing - or we'd have had tons of details
>> already.
>>
>
>Ya mean like Flynn being paid $530,000 from
>Turkey and some 30 grand from Russia today?
>

And Turkey and Russia are the same place just like the Baltic Sea and
the Black Sea are the same place? Jonthy, the Clintons acted as
agents for numerous foreign governments every since Bill left office.
That's what the Clinton Foundation DID, after all.

>
>Without Trump's taxes we have almost no details
>about his finances. The investigations are just
>beginning.
>

You have all the detail you need, as issued by his legal fir for the
past 10 years. There has been no significant Russian income,
investment, or debt over the last ten years, except for things like
the sale of condos and such.

>
>When Comey testifies soon, that will be
>high political drama, as tense as when
>Ollie and Poindexter testified over
>Iran Contra, more exciting.
>

And who did they finally manage to charge with anything out of that,
Jonthy?

<snip JonthyLoonSpew>

>
>Well, during Clinton's impeachment we got to learn
>so many personal details it became R-Rated.
>If we can learn Clinton came all over Monica's shoulder
>instead of in her mouth I think Trump's taxes will
>make their way to the public once the investigation
>is over.
>
>That is, if Trump makes it that long.
>

If they do, I think whoever leaks them will go to jail.

>
>>
>>>
>>> You know, someone being investigated does NOT remove their
>>> right to privacy from prying loons like you.
>>>
>>
>
>When you run for President privacy is a thing
>of the past. The public has a right to know
>just about everything outside the bedroom.
>Unless of course your name is Clinton.
>

Absolute hogwash.

>
>I know he's not legally required to release
>his taxes, but if credible allegations arise
>the people have a right to know if their
>president is a crook.
>

Still waiting for those 'credible allegations'. You being credulous
does not make them credible.

>
>>
>> Actually, it'd be illegal to discuss details of
>> Trumps IRS filings in a public forum.
>>
>
>Bullshit. Unless you happen to be the person
>that hacked them. Conversations here in usenet
>have the very highest level of First Amendment
>protection of all, according to the US Supreme
>Court.
>

Way to misinterpret what he said, Jonthy. It's the sort of loony spin
I've come to expect from you.

Hint: What he said was essentially what you said. What he's saying
is that THE INVESTIGATION can't just decide to publicly discuss
Trump's taxes. That would be criminal misconduct.

>
>Anything goes, this is not publishing it's speech.
>As if two people were talking to each other in a
>living room, the law has nothing at all to say about
>what is discussed on usenet outside the obvious
>like conspiring to commit some crime and so on.
>

No, Jonthy. It doesn't matter if it's 'speech' or 'writings'. There
are all sorts of restrictions on what one can say here. You just
don't realize it because you have no clue about anything.

>
>>
>> It's all private info unless HE makes it public.
>>
>
>Once it's leaked to the public, the public
>can talk about it all they like.
>
>It's illegal for the leaker, not for the recipient.
>That's why reporters aren't jailed for printing
>leaked information even if it's classified.
>

Actually, if the reporter knows that the information was illegally
obtained, they can be charged. You REALLY need to catch up on current
law.

>
>
>>
>> If one
>> speck of that IRS info escaped to the press
>> the leakers would be subject to prosecution.
>> Any prying into his taxes would HAVE to be
>> done behind doubly-locked doors.
>>
>> Oh, and Trump had a global biz empire. Why
>> would Russian money be directly from, or
>> directly to, his personal accounts ?
>>
>
>After Trump's two bankruptcies he could no longer
>get loans from ANY US banks, and real estate deals
>need huge loans. Yet his deals continued.
>

Note that there is no evidence for the preceding claim other than TDS
loon innuendo.

>
>The presumption, given substance by Donald Jr
>bragging about how much Russian money was
>'pouring in', is that Trump for several years
>was forced to borrow from dubious sources
>such as Russian oligarchs.
>

Only if you're a TDS loon. There have been no loans from Russian
oligarchs or any other Russians for the last ten years. His current
legal firm has certified that. The reason it only goes back ten years
is because that's when they started representing him. Donald Jr is no
doubt talking about income from selling properties to Russians. The
stupidity of the audience (you) doesn't change the facts.

<snip Jonthy argument by innuendo>

>
>He could have ended the suspicion easily
>be releasing his taxes, and showing all
>the speculation is wrong.
>

Don't be silly. Nutters like you would take those thousands of pages
and make up the same sort of nutty conspiracy theories that you
currently put forward.

>
>But now that he attempted to obstruct justice
>and admitted it publicly, that ship has sailed.
>Even if his finances are clean, he's still sunk.
>

Poppycock.

>
>And it was his own big mouth that sunk him.
>The guy is stupid or something.
>

There's certainly stupid involved here, but it seems to reside with
you TDS loons.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[First-Post]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 02:14:11 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

" Are any Democratic lawmakers starting to fear that they’re not
going to find that evidence? The intelligence community is presumably
always watching the Russian government as closely as they can. The FBI
counterintelligence guys presumably track Russian agents on our soil
as much as possible. You figure the NSA can track just about any
electronic communication between Russians and figures in the Trump
campaign. If there was something sinister and illegal going on between
the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the U.S. government as
a whole had every incentive in the world to expose that as quickly as
possible.

They didn’t expose it before Election Day, they didn’t expose it
before the Electoral College voted, they didn’t expose it before
Inauguration Day … How many months have the best investigators in the
United States been digging into this?"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/why-there-wont-be-any-evidence-of-russian-collusion-explained-in-just-two-paragraphs/

[Jonathan]

You don't understand the law, it's illegal
to attempt to obstruct justice, whether
or not the attempt was successful is
entirely irrelevant.

Trump's own words twice in the last
week clearly show his intent to
obstruct justice. First in his admission
he fired Comey because of the 'witch hunt'
over Russia. And now with the conversation
with the Russians in the oval office
when he said he fired nutjob Comey
so now the pressure is off over the
Russia investigations.

And the White House has not disputed
that last statement at all, so it's
accurate.

Open and shut case of obstruction
which is why we have a special council
appointed by a person Trump appointed.

Not a democrat, but Trump's selection
for Dep AG decided it was justified.

You Trump loons would find excuses for
him if he was videotaped shooting
someone just for the fun of it.

It's really sad to see, because Trump
isn't about helping the working man
but his tax plan showed he only cares
about the 1%, people like himself.

Rubes~

[Jonathan]

How long? The investigations are just getting underway.
In Watergate it was two years before any charges
were substantiated. Has Flynn testified, has Manafort
or any of the others suspected of colluding?

No they haven't, until then the investigation hasn't
even started. They get their first real evidence to
look at when Comey testifies soon, if he does
when it comes to the obstruction accusations.

And when Flynn or Manafort testifies or is prosecuted
then the colluding investigation gets going in earnest.

The investigations need to make a criminal
case against those two, once they are both
about to face trial that's when they cut
a deal and we find out what evidence they
have on colluding, that's a ways off.

Claiming there's no evidence of colluding before
any witnesses have even been questioned is just
plain silly, give it a year for the legal battles
to play out, then you can say 'show me the beef'?

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You don't understand the law, it's illegal
>to attempt to obstruct justice, whether
>or not the attempt was successful is
>entirely irrelevant.
>

You apparently don't understand the law, either, as you clearly show
in your following remarks.

>
>Trump's own words twice in the last
>week clearly show his intent to
>obstruct justice. First in his admission
>he fired Comey because of the 'witch hunt'
>over Russia. And now with the conversation
>with the Russians in the oval office
>when he said he fired nutjob Comey
>so now the pressure is off over the
>Russia investigations.
>
>And the White House has not disputed
>that last statement at all, so it's
>accurate.
>

And neither of those things constitutes 'obstruction'. If they did,
every bureaucrat would immediately commence an investigation against
their boss to make themselves 'termination proof'. And as for your
second item, gee, you must think 'safe spaces' apply if the President
can't call someone who works for him a 'nutjob'.

The whole 'obstruction' issue hinges upon interpretation of the
conversation with Comey where Trump "hopes he can let Flynn go". Is a
'hope' pressure and therefore obstruction? TDS Democrats say yes,
certainly (while giving Clinton a pass over the airport meeting with
the AG at the time). Sane people who speak colloquial English say not
so much.

<snip JonthyLoonSpew>

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>How long? The investigations are just getting underway.
>In Watergate it was two years before any charges
>were substantiated. Has Flynn testified, has Manafort
>or any of the others suspected of colluding?
>

Nor will they without some kind of ironclad immunity deal, at which
point you run the risk of them just saying it was all them and their
walking.

>
>No they haven't, until then the investigation hasn't
>even started. They get their first real evidence to
>look at when Comey testifies soon, if he does
>when it comes to the obstruction accusations.
>

Expect Republicans to skewer Comey with his behaviour about Clinton.

>
>And when Flynn or Manafort testifies or is prosecuted
>then the colluding investigation gets going in earnest.
>
>The investigations need to make a criminal
>case against those two, once they are both
>about to face trial that's when they cut
>a deal and we find out what evidence they
>have on colluding, that's a ways off.
>

Yeah, that will happen on about the first of never. If things get
that far and there is anything other than a bunch of TDS gorilla dust,
they'll take the bullet.

>
>Claiming there's no evidence of colluding before
>any witnesses have even been questioned is just
>plain silly, give it a year for the legal battles
>to play out, then you can say 'show me the beef'?
>

You loons have been talking about it since before the election. If
six months isn't long enough to have at least ONE fact to point to,
how long is a full criminal prosecution going to take?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Mr. B1ack]

Look ... this is NOT intended to be some winnable
legal case. Hell, even if Flynn did everything the libs
hope he did it still may not be technically illegal to
any degree worthy of more than a five dollar fine.

The PURPOSE of all this is PROPAGANDA. It's a
campaign to paralyze and neuter TRUMP before
he can bring down the level of The Swamp. Flynn,
Comey, Mantafort ... just pawns and props, part
of the political theatre. It's not ABOUT them.

Trump said "witch hunt" and he's 100% correct.

Actually, I think most of America KNOWS that, it's
the DC pols who seem oblivious - think the
deplorables and proletariat are too stupid to see
what's going on.

[eagleso...@gmail.com]

> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.

If Mueller did the Waco investigation then he is a disallowed choice. He will simply listen to criminal lies by the governmental people and say, what they say is true.

There is no worse example of criminal assistance to the cover-up of Waco.

The torture of the criminal of .. who? Of course he admitted to the crime.

[Fred J. McCall]

eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
>> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
>> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
>> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.
>
>If Mueller did the Waco investigation then he is a disallowed choice. He will simply listen to criminal lies by the governmental people and say, what they say is true.
>

Why am I not surprised that Dougie is a Waco Whacko?

>
>There is no worse example of criminal assistance to the cover-up of Waco.
>

What 'cover up'? You mean the loon conspiracy theories?

>
>The torture of the criminal of .. who? Of course he admitted to the crime.
>

Who do you claim was tortured, Dougie? That's loony even for the
loons who buy into things like the flamethrower tank.

[eagleso...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 5:43:27 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
> >> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
> >> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
> >> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.
> >
> >If Mueller did the Waco investigation then he is a disallowed choice. He will simply listen to criminal lies by the governmental people and say, what they say is true.
> >
>
> Why am I not surprised that Dougie is a Waco Whacko?
>
> >
> >There is no worse example of criminal assistance to the cover-up of Waco.
> >
>
> What 'cover up'? You mean the loon conspiracy theories?
>
> >
> >The torture of the criminal of .. who? Of course he admitted to the crime.
> >
>
> Who do you claim was tortured, Dougie? That's loony even for the
> loons who buy into things like the flamethrower tank.
>
>

The issue is well known by a UN standing committee on US atrocity.
Well known at the Hague also.

[eagleso...@gmail.com]

> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.

President Bush made a revolutionary power grab on the
coat-tails of 911 necessity. Habious corpus and torture rights appeared
legalized finally. When does the emergency end? End given
the scenario to retake the Capital now.

Politics are fully recognized as not to ever be effective at re-setting the police powers. Obama reauthorized the special powers also.

You can say what you want of my comments because my work is
to end Amerika.

Mueller was chief torture orderer.

[george152]

On 5/24/2017 12:10 PM, eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:

>>
> The issue is well known by a UN standing committee on US atrocity.
> Well known at the Hague also.
>

Ah that's the well known Useless Nations.
How did Bosnia go again?
Talking of atrocities

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[PaxPerPoten]

On 5/23/2017 8:33 PM, george152 wrote:
> On 5/24/2017 12:10 PM, eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>
>> The issue is well known by a UN standing committee on US atrocity.
>> Well known at the Hague also.
>>
>
> Ah that's the well known Useless Nations.
> How did Bosnia go again?

Yup We blew the Hell out of Christian Serbians for doing to the Muslim
Bosnian's the same as they had done to the Christians. The Billy-Bob
insisted on War crimes tribunals on the Serbians.

> Talking of atrocities

Perhaps you folks should read the book:

Tiger Force by Michael Sallah & Mitch Weiss(Pulitzer Prize)
Publisher Little,Brown, and Company-New York-Boston
Circa may 2006

I believe We in America need to clean up our act and actually lead by
example and do do the right thing for a change.



--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Fred J. McCall]

Better have them check your meds, Dougie. I think they're kicking
back on you....

[Fred J. McCall]

Dougie, you need to seek treatment.

[Jonathan]

On 5/20/2017 8:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't understand the law, it's illegal
>> to attempt to obstruct justice, whether
>> or not the attempt was successful is
>> entirely irrelevant.
>>
>
> You apparently don't understand the law, either, as you clearly show
> in your following remarks.
>
>>
>> Trump's own words twice in the last
>> week clearly show his intent to
>> obstruct justice. First in his admission
>> he fired Comey because of the 'witch hunt'
>> over Russia. And now with the conversation
>> with the Russians in the oval office
>> when he said he fired nutjob Comey
>> so now the pressure is off over the
>> Russia investigations.
>>
>> And the White House has not disputed
>> that last statement at all, so it's
>> accurate.
>>
>
> And neither of those things constitutes 'obstruction'. If they did,
> every bureaucrat would immediately commence an investigation

Almost the next day the Trump appointed Dep AG appointed
the Special Council. That speaks for itself.
And now we hear Trump twisted the arms of the DNI
and NSA heads to lie for him and discredit the
investigation.

Fred, when the president asks those two to publicly
say there's no evidence against him, he's asking
them to lie because not only are the investigations
just getting started, but neither of them have
access to the FBI findings.

Trump is guilty as sin, and he's not going to make
it through his first term. Not a chance.

against
> their boss to make themselves 'termination proof'. And as for your
> second item, gee, you must think 'safe spaces' apply if the President
> can't call someone who works for him a 'nutjob'.
>
> The whole 'obstruction' issue hinges upon interpretation of the
> conversation with Comey where Trump "hopes he can let Flynn go". Is a
> 'hope' pressure and therefore obstruction? TDS Democrats say yes,
> certainly (while giving Clinton a pass over the airport meeting with
> the AG at the time). Sane people who speak colloquial English say not
> so much.
>

You're dreaming, Trump is doing his best to cover up
his Russian colluding, and he's going to be busted
over it, it's only a matter of time. Even Watergate
didn't break this fast or have HALF the evidence
and the investigations haven't even begun yet.

They've barely had a witness or two Fred.





> <snip JonthyLoonSpew>
>
>

[eagleso...@gmail.com]

>
> Better have them check your meds, Dougie. I think they're kicking

Your sad.

[eagleso...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 9:45:37 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> Anyway, Mueller is probably the best choice we
> >> could hope for. Well-known, pretty well respected
> >> and he's been out of the game for awhile so he's
> >> gonna be less beholdin' to partisanship.
> >
> >President Bush made a revolutionary power grab on the
> >coat-tails of 911 necessity. Habious corpus and torture rights appeared
> >legalized finally. When does the emergency end? End given
> >the scenario to retake the Capital now.
> >
> >Politics are fully recognized as not to ever be effective at re-setting the police powers. Obama reauthorized the special powers also.
> >
> >You can say what you want of my comments because my work is
> >to end Amerika.
> >
> >Mueller was chief torture orderer.
> >
>
> Dougie, you need to seek treatment.
>
>

You now know my ilk. You wear goodie-two-shoe goggles.

Go play Partridge family elsewhere.

[Jonathan]

And just now we find out our highest law enforcement
officer Sessions, on his security clearance where
it asks him if he had any contacts with a foreign
official in the last seven years....left it blank.

Just like Flynn~

Gee, funny how all these folks get amnesia when
it comes to Russia, I wonder why?





>
>
>
>> <snip JonthyLoonSpew>
>>
>>
>

[Fred J. McCall]

And what do the voices in your head claim it says, Jonthy? Something
stupid, I'm sure.

>
>And now we hear Trump twisted the arms of the DNI
>and NSA heads to lie for him and discredit the
>investigation.
>

I thought Pelosi said it was the head of the NRA, not the NSA. And he
didn't ask them to lie. He asked them to tell the truth.

>
>Fred, when the president asks those two to publicly
>say there's no evidence against him, he's asking
>them to lie because not only are the investigations
>just getting started, but neither of them have
>access to the FBI findings.
>

No, he's asking them to tell the truth, since there currently IS no
evidence. Even you imply so.

>
>Trump is guilty as sin, and he's not going to make
>it through his first term. Not a chance.
>

Oh? Have you lost track of which party hold Congress again?

>
>> against
>> their boss to make themselves 'termination proof'. And as for your
>> second item, gee, you must think 'safe spaces' apply if the President
>> can't call someone who works for him a 'nutjob'.
>>
>> The whole 'obstruction' issue hinges upon interpretation of the
>> conversation with Comey where Trump "hopes he can let Flynn go". Is a
>> 'hope' pressure and therefore obstruction? TDS Democrats say yes,
>> certainly (while giving Clinton a pass over the airport meeting with
>> the AG at the time). Sane people who speak colloquial English say not
>> so much.
>>
>
>You're dreaming, Trump is doing his best to cover up
>his Russian colluding, and he's going to be busted
>over it, it's only a matter of time. Even Watergate
>didn't break this fast or have HALF the evidence
>and the investigations haven't even begun yet.
>

Half of zero is zero.

>
>They've barely had a witness or two Fred.
>

And they have no evidence yet, Jonthy.

[Fred J. McCall]

eagleso...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>>
>> Better have them check your meds, Dougie. I think they're kicking
>>
>
>Your sad.
>

My sad what, you deranged nutter?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/19/2017 3:42 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>
> [...]

You fuckwit: it wasn't the State Department, it was the Justice
Department. And it's special *counsel*, not "council".

[Fred J. McCall]

I've always known your ilk, Dougie. You're a mentally defective
nutter.

>
>You wear goodie-two-shoe goggles.
>

You wear Loony Lenses (tm).

>
>Go play Partridge family elsewhere.
>

Kiss my ass, you deranged nutter.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
>And just now we find out our highest law enforcement
>officer Sessions, on his security clearance where
>it asks him if he had any contacts with a foreign
>official in the last seven years....left it blank.
>

Why would Sessions need a new security clearance? He was on the Armed
Services Committee in the Senate and presumably already had one. As a
Senator I'm sure he met with all sorts of foreigners in the last 7
years.

>
>Gee, funny how all these folks get amnesia when
>it comes to Russia, I wonder why?
>

Because you're stupid and delusional?

[David E. Powell]

I am sure something is being covered up, but I think it has more to do with the DNC and them being covered.

The interesting thing about the Seth Rich case is, WikiLeaks didn't really use conventional "hacks" for their most infamous document dumps of the past.

They used moles. They used people inside of organizations who would use and abuse their existing clearances and access to classified information, and then walk the information out of the front door.

With the NSA, they used Edward Snowden, who ran away from likely (and deserved) criminal charges to go overseas.

With the Army, they used (Former) Private Manning, who was sentenced to jail time, which was what he deserved, for endangering lives. (Manning's sentence was commuted, unfortunately.)

This brings us to the DNC information leak. The media really, really wants to raise the prospect that WikiLeaks was using high level Russian Government hackers as their source. The only problem is, while WikiLeaks may or may not be tight with the Russians, their M.O. in every one of their highest-profile leaks and document dumps has not been hacking into databases, but cultivating moles.

Why is no one in the media even mentioning the possibility of a mole, singular or plural? If an organization's security is breached, especially by an organization or entity that has been known to use moles in the past, wouldn't one of the first questions asked within that organization whether there may or may not be a mole? Wouldn't other organizations, like media organizations, speculate as to whether there might be a leaker inside, at least out of concern for the organization which they are favorable to?

Yet no one mentions the possibility that there may have been a mole, when the media talks about it. Only the possibility of hacking. The one person in the high profile U.S. Media who has mentioned the possibility of an organization which has repeatedly used moles to gain access to sensitive material using a mole to gain access to sensitive material in the case of the DNC is now in very hot water for it.