speaking of corruption, collusion and Russia...
http://silenceisconsent.net/bombshe...er-dumps-28000-private-hillary-emails-online/
http://silenceisconsent.net/bombshe...er-dumps-28000-private-hillary-emails-online/
And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
- Status
Awesome. What are the odds of the Fake News MSM reporting on that? Maybe Drudge and Breitbart will pick it up.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
interesting. When I click on the link, the site opens in another table, then that tab gets closed right away bringing me back here.
The site is probably outside of our new IT policies, which, lucky for you ******* doesn't yet block this site. Just funny considering the topic.
Again, there is no point in making it easy for the criminal. In Hildebeast's email case, the employee at Platte River Networks who managed the security of her system, one Paul Combetta, told the company to stop giving him alerts after receiving 50 alerts on hacking attempts. Now then, NO ONE in a position of network security is that incompetent. You would only do that if you are told by the client that they don't mind the access attempts. Hildebeast has a clear history of selling secrets, access, and policy for donations to her "foundation".
Further, for all their bitching about Russian hackers, the DNC will not give the FBI access to their server to investigate any hacking. What do you suppose the DNC doesn't want the FBI to see?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/27/house-committee-seeks-charges-for-hillary-clintons-it-firm/
Last edited:
yoga tips, pictures of grandchildren, secret ingredients of KFC and identity of the Lone Ranger.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Nothingburger Royale
Glenn Greenwald: Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Aren't a "Smoking Gun" or Evidence of Criminal Collusion
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, "moving the goalposts" by saying, "Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion." To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats.
The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, "Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it." Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it's wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction.
So, to me, what this email says is it’s from a British promoter who’s trying to lure Donald Trump Jr. into a meeting with someone who is his friend, saying, "The Russians want your father to win, and they’re willing to give you information to help." I think it’s clear the Russian government wanted Donald Trump to win. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. Nor do I find it surprising that Donald Trump Jr., when told that the Russian government wants to give him information that can help his father shed a bad light on Hillary Clinton, he was willing to do that. Why do we consider that surprising, let alone criminal?
There’s still a lot more steps that need to be completed before we get to any kind of evidence of an actual crime being committed. And that’s why I don’t think that this revelation, interesting though it may be, is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment or the prosecution case.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails
-------------------------
with extra cheese
Dershowitz Slams New York Times Op-ed For Broaching Trump Jr. Treason Charge
Alan Dershowitz slammed The New York Times on Wednesday, telling Fox News's Neil Cavuto he can't believe the newspaper "had an op-ed in which treason was mentioned" regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer.
"There’s really no difference on the First Amendment between a campaigner using information obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and the newspaper doing it," said Dershowitz
"It is also not prohibited by law," Dershowitz continued. "There has been so much overwrought claim. People are talking about treason. I can't believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned."
"Prosecution under the federal treason statute is ultimately unlikely because we are not at war with Russia," reads the op-ed by Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyers for former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively.
Dershowitz argued in a separate FoxNews.com opinion piece that even if Trump Jr. did collude with the Russians, there is no law on the books that says it's a crime.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...s-op-ed-for-broaching-trump-jr-treason-charge
Glenn Greenwald: Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Aren't a "Smoking Gun" or Evidence of Criminal Collusion
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, "moving the goalposts" by saying, "Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion." To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats.
The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, "Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it." Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it's wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction.
So, to me, what this email says is it’s from a British promoter who’s trying to lure Donald Trump Jr. into a meeting with someone who is his friend, saying, "The Russians want your father to win, and they’re willing to give you information to help." I think it’s clear the Russian government wanted Donald Trump to win. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. Nor do I find it surprising that Donald Trump Jr., when told that the Russian government wants to give him information that can help his father shed a bad light on Hillary Clinton, he was willing to do that. Why do we consider that surprising, let alone criminal?
There’s still a lot more steps that need to be completed before we get to any kind of evidence of an actual crime being committed. And that’s why I don’t think that this revelation, interesting though it may be, is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment or the prosecution case.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails
-------------------------
with extra cheese
Dershowitz Slams New York Times Op-ed For Broaching Trump Jr. Treason Charge
Alan Dershowitz slammed The New York Times on Wednesday, telling Fox News's Neil Cavuto he can't believe the newspaper "had an op-ed in which treason was mentioned" regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer.
"There’s really no difference on the First Amendment between a campaigner using information obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and the newspaper doing it," said Dershowitz
"It is also not prohibited by law," Dershowitz continued. "There has been so much overwrought claim. People are talking about treason. I can't believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned."
"Prosecution under the federal treason statute is ultimately unlikely because we are not at war with Russia," reads the op-ed by Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyers for former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively.
Dershowitz argued in a separate FoxNews.com opinion piece that even if Trump Jr. did collude with the Russians, there is no law on the books that says it's a crime.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...s-op-ed-for-broaching-trump-jr-treason-charge
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
SLAMMED!
Republicans Block Effort To Revoke Jared Kushners Security Clearance
They called the move a “political stunt.”
WASHINGTON ― House Republicans voted Thursday to block an effort aimed at revoking the security clearance of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner.
Several members of Congress have questioned the appropriateness of Kushner maintaining a security clearance following bombshell reports that he met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer who promised incriminating information about 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. The president’s son-in-law failed to disclose the meeting, as well as several other meetings with Russian officials, on the security clearance form he submitted before the Trump administration took office.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who chaired the Democratic National Committee during much of last year’s campaign cycle, proposed an amendment targeting Kushner during a House Appropriations Committee markup session Thursday. It was voted down, 22-30, along party lines.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._596783aae4b0a0c6f1e67433?ncid=APPLENEWS00001
Republicans Block Effort To Revoke Jared Kushners Security Clearance
They called the move a “political stunt.”
WASHINGTON ― House Republicans voted Thursday to block an effort aimed at revoking the security clearance of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner.
Several members of Congress have questioned the appropriateness of Kushner maintaining a security clearance following bombshell reports that he met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer who promised incriminating information about 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. The president’s son-in-law failed to disclose the meeting, as well as several other meetings with Russian officials, on the security clearance form he submitted before the Trump administration took office.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who chaired the Democratic National Committee during much of last year’s campaign cycle, proposed an amendment targeting Kushner during a House Appropriations Committee markup session Thursday. It was voted down, 22-30, along party lines.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._596783aae4b0a0c6f1e67433?ncid=APPLENEWS00001
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I think those are two very logical and tempered opinions of what is going on.
The more I read up on this, I'm not sure I think this is that big a deal. The fact NOTHING even came of the meeting and that for all intents and purposes the meeting was over after the first 5 minutes kind of is the most important "FACT" of the whole thing.
How the meeting came about, who talked to whom, the connections these individuals might have had back to government entities is all hypothetical.
As stated many times, this doesn't at all prove collusion of the Trump camp with the Russian camp when it came to how/when Wikileaks released the DNC e-mails. This meeting has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the proof that a Russian, acting under the orders of the Kremlin, actually hacked and downloaded Podesta's e-mails is still only in non-released classified documents held by our "intelligence communities". I'm not even sure that is correct. Assange denies it.
Everything is still too unclear and muddled. Nothing is fact. Even the intelligence community talks in riddles when discussing this issue. Yes, Russia "tampered" with the election but I have yet to see SPECIFICS on how they did it. What the **** does "tampered" mean exactly to the CIA? Could mean anything.
I'm sure Mueller's final report will be littered with riddles and innuendo and non-specific language just like this. And the left will claim victory and yell impeachment while the right will claim vindication on how little specific info Mueller has and (in all likelihood) no prosecution of any lawbreaking.
This is just a dog and pony shot. Always has been, always well be.
The more I read up on this, I'm not sure I think this is that big a deal. The fact NOTHING even came of the meeting and that for all intents and purposes the meeting was over after the first 5 minutes kind of is the most important "FACT" of the whole thing.
How the meeting came about, who talked to whom, the connections these individuals might have had back to government entities is all hypothetical.
As stated many times, this doesn't at all prove collusion of the Trump camp with the Russian camp when it came to how/when Wikileaks released the DNC e-mails. This meeting has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the proof that a Russian, acting under the orders of the Kremlin, actually hacked and downloaded Podesta's e-mails is still only in non-released classified documents held by our "intelligence communities". I'm not even sure that is correct. Assange denies it.
Everything is still too unclear and muddled. Nothing is fact. Even the intelligence community talks in riddles when discussing this issue. Yes, Russia "tampered" with the election but I have yet to see SPECIFICS on how they did it. What the **** does "tampered" mean exactly to the CIA? Could mean anything.
I'm sure Mueller's final report will be littered with riddles and innuendo and non-specific language just like this. And the left will claim victory and yell impeachment while the right will claim vindication on how little specific info Mueller has and (in all likelihood) no prosecution of any lawbreaking.
This is just a dog and pony shot. Always has been, always well be.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
BOOM!
Hacker Site “Cyber Berkut” Publishes Links Between Ukraine and Clinton
According to Cyber Berkut the Ukrainian foundation transferred 10 to 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine sponsored the Clinton Foundation using IMF loans.
According to the investigation, such banks as Tavrika, Pivdenkom Bank, Avtokraz Bank, CityCommerce Bank, Finrost Bank, Terra Bank, Kyivska Rus Bank, Vernum Bank, Credit Dnepr Bank, Delta Bank were involved in the criminal scheme. Funds were transferred through Austrian Meinl Bank AG.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...rkut-publishes-alleged-links-ukraine-clinton/
Hacker Site “Cyber Berkut” Publishes Links Between Ukraine and Clinton
According to Cyber Berkut the Ukrainian foundation transferred 10 to 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine sponsored the Clinton Foundation using IMF loans.
According to the investigation, such banks as Tavrika, Pivdenkom Bank, Avtokraz Bank, CityCommerce Bank, Finrost Bank, Terra Bank, Kyivska Rus Bank, Vernum Bank, Credit Dnepr Bank, Delta Bank were involved in the criminal scheme. Funds were transferred through Austrian Meinl Bank AG.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...rkut-publishes-alleged-links-ukraine-clinton/
I have a feeling that this is going to get real interesting very soon. .........and theywill be exposing REAL crimes committed.
I am so confused over this....so Trump Jr. meets with someone who might have info on Hillary. He thinks it's a good thing and agrees. Nothing comes out of the meeting. But that is collusion?? And Obama let this Russian someone in when she shouldn't have been....so....WTF??? I know I am not the smartest person here, and that I ask a lot of stupid ****, but....HOW IS THIS A BAD THING????
Mrs. Burgundy is an accountant at a pretty good size company. Today she discovered a glitch in their software that was calculating their sales tax incorrectly. It's complicated because they operate in multiple states. I told her to blame it on Russian hackers. She laughed.
I'm pretty sure the doj extended the Visa. Just came out today. No way would any illegal be allowed in a Congressional hearing...
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Steeler Nation mobile app
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Steeler Nation mobile app
Sometimes glitches such as that are not meant to be discovered. Tell her to use the buddy system.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
It's all good - keep your eye on the prize
Trump could appoint four Supreme Court justices
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday he believes it’s possible President Trump could name as many as four justices to the Supreme Court during his presidency.
“We could have four Supreme Court picks on Trump’s watch,” Graham said Thursday in Washington at a private event sponsored by a political action committee for young conservatives. “Do you understand how big that is for y’all?”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...supreme-court-justices-during-presidency.html
Trump could appoint four Supreme Court justices
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday he believes it’s possible President Trump could name as many as four justices to the Supreme Court during his presidency.
“We could have four Supreme Court picks on Trump’s watch,” Graham said Thursday in Washington at a private event sponsored by a political action committee for young conservatives. “Do you understand how big that is for y’all?”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...supreme-court-justices-during-presidency.html
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,931
- Reaction score
- 15,740
- Points
- 113
Because they said so.
Remember with liberals, whatever they accuse somebody of is usually something they have done themselves.
It's kind of like an aggressive projection that they have going. It isnt a pretty sight.
So she is just doing what Peter and Michael did in Office Space. No biggie!!!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Cough. It's illegal when that someone happens to be an agent or otherwise connected to a foreign government. But you probably knew that already and are just trying to be cute.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 14,924
- Reaction score
- 13,226
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Lebanon, OH (Near Kings Island)
If that is true then we probably could put half or more of Washington in jail. Not that that would be a bad thing.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Half is a drastically low estimate. I'd put it at over 90%.
You want collusion. I got collusion........
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-email-its-hillary-clinton-who-colluded-with
[FONT="]Again, in a move of full transparency, Trump Jr. publicly released the entire email chain on Twitter. The initial email states that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered to provide the Trump campaign with “information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” In other words, the information Trump Jr. initially expressed interest in receiving was not hacked emails or illegally obtained documents but apparently information about Clinton’s official Secretary of State dealings with Russia. At the time the information was offered on June 3, 2016, there was no information suggesting Russian hackers were responsible for the hacking of the DNC. Donald Trump Jr., in other words, had no reason to believe that the information he sought was little more than opposition research.
Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia. Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction. Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch. [/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions? [/FONT]
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-email-its-hillary-clinton-who-colluded-with
[FONT="]Again, in a move of full transparency, Trump Jr. publicly released the entire email chain on Twitter. The initial email states that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered to provide the Trump campaign with “information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” In other words, the information Trump Jr. initially expressed interest in receiving was not hacked emails or illegally obtained documents but apparently information about Clinton’s official Secretary of State dealings with Russia. At the time the information was offered on June 3, 2016, there was no information suggesting Russian hackers were responsible for the hacking of the DNC. Donald Trump Jr., in other words, had no reason to believe that the information he sought was little more than opposition research.
Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia. Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction. Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch. [/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Given this context, why wouldn’t Trump Jr. be open to taking a meeting that offered evidence of incriminating Clinton dealings with Russia, particularly when most of the media refused to look into Clinton’s question-raising actions? [/FONT]
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
shhhhh.....(it's OK when the Dems do it)
meanwhile, Witch hunt with McCarthy cheese
New memo:
"Every single Republican should immediately ask of every person they speak with in every meeting with anyone at the beginning of every conversation"
“First, before I answer your question, Are you now or have you ever been an agent for the Russian government?"
this includes each and every question by every single reporter from every single news outlet
after 100,000 straight
"Are you now or have you ever been an agent for the Russian government?"
statements before any comments to the press, maybe they will wise up, or not, who cares
just keep doing it
meanwhile, Witch hunt with McCarthy cheese
New memo:
"Every single Republican should immediately ask of every person they speak with in every meeting with anyone at the beginning of every conversation"
“First, before I answer your question, Are you now or have you ever been an agent for the Russian government?"
this includes each and every question by every single reporter from every single news outlet
after 100,000 straight
"Are you now or have you ever been an agent for the Russian government?"
statements before any comments to the press, maybe they will wise up, or not, who cares
just keep doing it
Last edited:
- Status
