|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Mar 28, 2019 6:16:26 GMT -6
lol. He's insane. It is sure a lot less corrupt without he and McCabe in charge. |
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Mar 28, 2019 7:51:27 GMT -6
lol. He's insane. It is sure a lot less corrupt without he and McCabe in charge. He, McCabe, Brennan, and Clapper have insisted (as recently as a couple of weeks ago) that they have seen indisputable evidence of Trump crimes with Russia during the election. So, now that the Mueller report has vindicated Trump, we can conclude one of the following (and I don't see any possible middle ground here): 1. This band of Keystone Koupsters was the most bumbling, incompetent leaders of our nation's most important intelligence agencies, and who are incapable of determining what is an actual crime (this should terrify everyone) 2. These guys are all nothing short of bitter, psychotic, pathological liars, guilty of sedition at best, and treason at worst (this should also terrify everyone) |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 9:00:10 GMT -6
So, this happened today:
The House Republicans all signed a letter calling on corrupt leaker-liar Rep. Adam Schiff to resign from the committee in their opening remarks.
Schiff followed this up with a fresh pack of lies saying there was collusion between Trump and Russia, the Trump was working with the Russians before the election, and that Trump was working with Putin to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election.
None of this is true or factual.
Adam Schiff continues to lie to the American public.
After his remarks the GOP member on the committee, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) asked to refute the chairman’s baseless claims.
The two started to argue.
Then SCHIFF CUT OFF TURNER’S MICROPHONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 9:02:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 9:09:11 GMT -6
Newt Gingrich: This is the first deliberate attempt of a coup d’etat by the deep state we’ve ever seen. It was clearly an attack on the American Constitution on our entire process of governance. People like Comey were right in the middle of it. The very idea that he has the hutzpah to go on national television to say anything given his own track record tells you how sick the system has become. The whole system frankly resembles the Jussie Smollett case. Over and over and over again we have these people who are liars, who show back up as if they weren’t liars, who pretend they can be relied upon. You had the head of a CIA who I think was undermining the United States and undermining the constitution. And this is not going to go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 10:34:13 GMT -6
Well my source tells me that the intelligence community, Obama’s intelligence community, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, they were frustrated because they had this Russian dossier but no one believed it was real,” Paul said. “It wasn’t verifiable, they couldn’t get anything out of it, so they sent spies into the Trump campaign, they tried to entrap Trump officials [into] admitting that they were working for Russia, but it wasn’t working.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 10:36:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by redrex1 on Mar 28, 2019 12:26:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Mar 28, 2019 18:45:26 GMT -6
So, this happened today: The House Republicans all signed a letter calling on corrupt leaker-liar Rep. Adam Schiff to resign from the committee in their opening remarks. Schiff followed this up with a fresh pack of lies saying there was collusion between Trump and Russia, the Trump was working with the Russians before the election, and that Trump was working with Putin to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election. None of this is true or factual. Adam Schiff continues to lie to the American public. After his remarks the GOP member on the committee, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) asked to refute the chairman’s baseless claims. The two started to argue. Then SCHIFF CUT OFF TURNER’S MICROPHONE! For 2 years he's been saying he's seen "top secret" evidence of collusion. No need to stop now. |
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Mar 28, 2019 18:47:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 18:53:30 GMT -6
So, this happened today: The House Republicans all signed a letter calling on corrupt leaker-liar Rep. Adam Schiff to resign from the committee in their opening remarks. Schiff followed this up with a fresh pack of lies saying there was collusion between Trump and Russia, the Trump was working with the Russians before the election, and that Trump was working with Putin to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election. None of this is true or factual. Adam Schiff continues to lie to the American public. After his remarks the GOP member on the committee, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) asked to refute the chairman’s baseless claims. The two started to argue. Then SCHIFF CUT OFF TURNER’S MICROPHONE! For 2 years he's been saying he's seen "top secret" evidence of collusion. No need to stop now. Which means, he had evidence and didn't turn it over to Mueller. Sounds like obstruction to me. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 18:59:32 GMT -6
President Trump: Democrats will have to decide whether they will continue to defraud the public with ridiculous bullshit, partisan investigations or whether they will apologize to the American people and join us to build the crumbling infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 19:02:08 GMT -6
President Trump: “Little pencil neck Adam Schiff. He has the smallest, thinnest neck I have ever seen. He is not a long-ball hitter.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 28, 2019 19:03:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 29, 2019 6:36:04 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/robert-mueller-report-said-to-exceed-300-pages-so-what/Mueller Report Said to Exceed 300 Pages, So . . . What? By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY March 28, 2019 3:08 PM There’s no reason to doubt that Attorney General Barr has faithfully described the report’s conclusions. The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller report “exceeds 300 pages” in length. That information is attributed to unidentified “American officials with knowledge of” the matter. If “exceeds 300 pages” means something close to 300 pages, it is less than I would have bet on. Of course, “exceeds 300 pages” could mean lots more than 300 pages. The Times notes that Fox’s Andrew Napolitano has claimed the report is 700 pages long (his basis for saying so is not clear). The paper also reminds us that Ken Starr’s Clinton-Lewinsky report was 445 pages long, last year’s inspector-general report on the Clinton emails investigation was 500 pages, and the 9/11 Commission report was 567. Meanwhile, Politico reports that Attorney General Bill Barr has told House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) how long the report is. Nadler has not revealed the number of pages; he has just said it is “very substantial.” When asked whether that means fewer than a thousand pages, Nadler replied, “I would think so.” He added that Barr would not commit to the April 2 deadline House Democrats would like to impose. Of course, page counts can be much ado about nothing. But the Times and the Democrats seem determined to make something out of them, suggesting that, since Attorney General Barr’s letter about Mueller’s report was only four pages (although the Gray Lady allows that these pages were “dense”), this “raises questions about what Barr might have left out.” Jim Geraghty has an excellent analysis of this claim in today’s Morning Jolt. The argument that a lengthy report implies deception in Barr’s summary seems silly to me. Almost all lengthy reports come with an executive summary that is, at most, just a few pages long. Lengthy books are routinely and representatively reviewed in just a few hundred words. The attorney general did not undertake to summarize Mueller’s full report; the purpose of his letter was to succinctly state Mueller’s principal conclusions. There is no reason to believe that could not be accurately done in four pages. No good deed goes unpunished. All of us want the report released, the sooner and more completely the better. But that does not mean we are legally entitled to have the report released. Unlike those who argue “this is what I want, so the law must therefore require it,” Barr has to deal with what the law actually says. In the interim, to ensure that we would have something, he read the lengthy report and turned around a letter about the main findings in less than 48 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 29, 2019 12:04:58 GMT -6
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-details-of-an-intelligence-office-meeting-with-fbi-regarding-security-threats-caused-by-hillary-clintons-illicit-email-system/www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-odni-icig-complaint-00807/Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the meeting between Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) official Frank Rucker, ICIG attorney Jeanette Macmillian, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and other regarding security threats associated with the private e-mail server utilized by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This request includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Any and all reports, notes, briefing materials, presentations, or similar records created in preparation for, during, and/or pursuant to the meeting.
Any and all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the ICIG and any other individual or entity.
For purposes of clarification, the meeting in question was referenced by Rep. Louis Gohmert during the testimony of Mr. Strzok at a House of Representatives hearing on July 12, 2018.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 29, 2019 12:11:48 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/angus-king-doesnt-believe-mueller-report/Senate Intelligence Committee member Angus King said he does not accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings of zero collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, saying the Senate has not completed their investigation. In a Friday interview, which is set to air on “Firing Line” with Margaret Hoover on PBS, the Maine Democrat says the committee is still looking into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, hinting their investigation is not “criminal.” “I’m not prepared to, because we’re not finished with our investigation. And you have to understand there are two very different missions of these two investigations,” King said. “Robert Mueller’s investigation was a criminal. He was looking for breaches of criminal law: conspiracy, obstruction of justice. That was his, that’s his focus as a prosecutor.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 29, 2019 15:15:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 29, 2019 15:18:53 GMT -6
thehill.com/homenews/senate/436293-rand-paul-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-releaseSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to be made public, arguing that Congress should also call for the release of communications and testimony from Obama-era officials. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who is one of several Democratic senators running for president, tried to get unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the resolution, which cleared the House in a 420-0 vote earlier this month. “We still have not seen the report. I have urged the Department of Justice to release the report, and the administration should not delay in producing the report to Congress,” Klobuchar said. But Paul objected because Klobuchar wouldn’t agree to amend the nonbinding resolution to include provisions calling for the public release of communications between several Obama-era officials including former President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. “We need to know was there malfeasance, was there misuse of power, did President Obama’s administration get involved in an election to infiltrate the Trump campaign to trap them? … We need to know that,” he said. “What we need to discover and we do not yet know: Was President Obama involved?”
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Mar 29, 2019 17:55:10 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/angus-king-doesnt-believe-mueller-report/Senate Intelligence Committee member Angus King said he does not accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings of zero collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, saying the Senate has not completed their investigation. In a Friday interview, which is set to air on “Firing Line” with Margaret Hoover on PBS, the Maine Democrat says the committee is still looking into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, hinting their investigation is not “criminal.” “I’m not prepared to, because we’re not finished with our investigation. And you have to understand there are two very different missions of these two investigations,” King said. “Robert Mueller’s investigation was a criminal. He was looking for breaches of criminal law: conspiracy, obstruction of justice. That was his, that’s his focus as a prosecutor.” These people are insane. |
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Mar 30, 2019 6:26:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 6:39:17 GMT -6
Hilarious part is the MSM blaming President Trump for their coverage and overly negative coverage of Mueller's investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 6:39:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 6:44:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 13:27:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 13:36:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 30, 2019 13:40:36 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/03/30/adam-schiff-angrily-insists-trump-guilty-despite-utter-lack-evidence/Adam Schiff Angrily Insists Trump Is Guilty Despite Utter Lack Of Evidence The bad news for Trump is that Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he’s dropped any pretense of accepting a Mueller decision as the final word on collusion. Jason Beale By Jason Beale MARCH 30, 2019 Imagine you’re building a circumstantial case in court, promising the judge and jury all along the way that your final witness will pull it all together with direct evidence to eliminate any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Your final witness takes his seat, clears his throat, and tells the court that he has thoroughly investigated the circumstantial evidence you’d presented, and found none of it sufficient to establish a criminal act. He goes on to say that his investigation found no additional evidence to support a criminal charge against the defendant. What do you say in your final argument? “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we know we promised the final witness was key to the case. We know we told you he would present evidence in support of, and in addition to, the circumstantial evidence we submitted throughout the trial, and that his testimony would leave no doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. “We’d now like you to disregard his testimony, ladies and gentlemen, despite our previous representation to this court that his testimony was necessary to prove our case. We’ve changed our minds. We’re now confident that the circumstantial evidence we presented was sufficient to establish enough suspicion to assume the defendant was guilty, and we’d like you to go with that. “It really comes down to a matter of trust, ladies and gentlemen. You can either believe our expert witness—who, quite frankly, gave us a bit of a surprise—or you can believe us, take another look at that circumstantial evidence we presented, and find the defendant very close to guilty enough. We trust you’ll choose wisely.” This seems to be the final argument of Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Gerald Nadler, and most of their friends and colleagues in the Democratic and media sphere: Forget what we’ve been promising you about Robert Mueller’s report; disregard his finding of no conspiracy or coordination; and take another look at the circumstantial elements of President Trump and his associates’ behavior we’ve been talking about for the last two years. Never mind that all of these elements were thoroughly examined during the investigation and found to be either completely immaterial or insufficient to support a charge. Never mind that, when challenged on the materiality of any of these circumstantial allegations, we’ve consistently defaulted to the expectation that Mueller would prove us right in the end. Just forget all of that and trust us when we tell you that we never needed Mueller to establish collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Schiff rehearsed this theme Thursday in his widely covered lecture to Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee in response to their joint letter calling for his resignation. Many in the media noted that Schiff was uncharacteristically emotional, his strident tone animating his recitation of a number of Trump-Russia interactions he believes to be sufficient evidence of collusion or, at the very least, “not okay.” Schiff’s anger and self-righteousness was reviewed favorably by the media, with a number of commentators noting his “passion” and that he “pushed back” and wasn’t going to let the assault on his integrity by the Republicans go without a fight. Left unspoken was the irony of a favorable media representation of the universal instinct of one believed to be falsely or unfairly accused to fight back with passion and occasional anger. With other notable examples of such behavior close at hand, none was mentioned. Also left unspoken was this: Schiff was looking directly at his Republican colleagues on the committee when he issued his “You might think it’s okay” rebuke of what he believed to be their dismissal of his list of collusive Trump-Russia interactions. While his anger and frustration seemed genuine, he chose the wrong target for his tirade. Schiff should be directing his self-righteous ire at Mueller, the only person in the country who has officially declared each of the issues on Schiff’s collusion list as immaterial or inconsequential. While Mueller and Rep. Devin Nunes may well turn out to have written similar reports declaring no case for conspiracy or collusion, it is the Mueller report that marks the official dismissal of Schiff’s grievances. Schiff argued, and will continue to argue, that he has always considered the Trump Tower meeting, the “Russia, if you’re listening…” speech, and the Manafort provision of polling data to a Russian business associate, et al., to meet his definition of collusion with Russia, even though they may not meet the evidentiary standards of criminal conspiracy. Prior to Attorney General William Barr’s release of his summary of the report last Saturday, Schiff would usually end that argument by expressing his confidence that Mueller would provide that answer. Now that the answer is “No, they don’t meet the evidentiary standards of criminal conspiracy,” Schiff is angry at Republicans for discounting his contention that these actions meet his standard for collusion and should meet theirs as well. The good news for Trump and the Republicans on the committee is that Schiff’s opinion has no bearing on the outcome of the Mueller investigation. If you believe that collusion and conspiracy are interchangeable conceptually, if not legally, then you’re satisfied that the absence of conspiracy should end all speculation about collusion. The bad news for Trump and Republicans is that Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he’s dropped any pretense of accepting a Mueller decision on conspiracy as the final word on collusion. Like the hypothetical lawyer giving the closing argument above, Schiff would like us to believe that the star witness he once told us would validate his circumstantial evidence is no longer essential to the proceedings. In fact, his testimony should be dismissed, and Schiff’s opinion should be substituted for the legal conclusions of the expert.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 31, 2019 9:30:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Mar 31, 2019 9:32:37 GMT -6
Senator Graham: I know Bill Barr and he’s pretty upset about how all of this was handled… I hope there is a special counsel appointed to look at DOJ corruption and political bias… I think it’s important to understand that political bias probably drove the Clinton outcome and not the facts… I just want the American people to know that the standards used against Clinton is an outlier. It’s not the way business is done. And why did they choose that path? I think they had a political bias. They wanted Clinton to win, Trump to lose… Well May 1st, Barr is going to bring the Mueller Report over… I’m going to turn looking toward the counter-intelligence investigation. How the Clinton email investigation was handled and FISA abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by atl1979 on Mar 31, 2019 11:04:43 GMT -6
lol. He's insane. It is sure a lot less corrupt without he and McCabe in charge. He, McCabe, Brennan, and Clapper have insisted (as recently as a couple of weeks ago) that they have seen indisputable evidence of Trump crimes with Russia during the election. So, now that the Mueller report has vindicated Trump, we can conclude one of the following (and I don't see any possible middle ground here): 1. This band of Keystone Koupsters was the most bumbling, incompetent leaders of our nation's most important intelligence agencies, and who are incapable of determining what is an actual crime (this should terrify everyone) 2. These guys are all nothing short of bitter, psychotic, pathological liars, guilty of sedition at best, and treason at worst (this should also terrify everyone) 15% (1) 85% (2) |
|
