|
|
| ||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stalhandske 09-Sep-18, 10:31 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Your Honor |
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske . . . Bringing up accusations or other forms of subterfuge is not going to help to refute or substantiate my assertions. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske 09-Sep-18, 14:05 |
Deleted by stalhandske on 09-Sep-18, 14:05.
|
|||||||||||
|
stalhandske 09-Sep-18, 14:09 |
This witness removes himself with pleasure. It is not worth my time to discuss a matter that is imbecile in the first place, that was "supported" by entirely untrustworthy material, and that was moreover already refuted by a post by L_S. |
|||||||||||
|
Without the Free Flow of Information I expect to see more and more censorship as the Midterms get nearer! The New Censorship: How Did Google Become the Internet’s Censor and Master Manipulator, blocking Access to Millions of Websites?” GOOGLE, INC., ISN'T just the world's biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world's biggest censor. The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block. When Google's employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude. www.usnews.com “Internet Censorship and Surveillance by Country” In this report America is listed as one of the enemies of the Internet! en.m.wikipedia.org |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Is going to be nada! Zilch, Zero. Mark my words, softy. "Trump Orders Feds to Declassify FISA Documents, Text Messages in FBI Russia Probe" www.google.com Finally, lets get this out in the open so Mueller can get his life back and this president can get on with his job! |
|||||||||||
|
Russia Used |
|||||||||||
|
No Effect adage.com "Why We Can't Trust Facebook's Story About Russian Ads" www.google.com Here us what I mean. Russia interfering is fake news! |
|||||||||||
|
Social Media Promotes Socialism www.hagmannreport.com |
|||||||||||
|
Real Change from a Real President! With so much corruption the president is left but with one alternative to restore law and order in America – fulfilling his promise to “Drain the Swamp”. “is Kavanaugh Confirmation Being Sabotaged to Delay Military Trials of Deep State?” Why would the Deep State be targeting Kavanaugh in this way? An answer comes from some of the cases predicted by the military intelligence group Q to soon appear on the Supreme Court calendar. These anticipated cases involved challenges to the legality of upcoming military trials of Deep State officials, and the rights of US citizens being tried in such courts. On September 5, Q drew readers attention to a question and answer exchange between Kavanaugh and Senator Lindsay Graham during his confirmation hearing. Q related it to an Executive Order issued by Donald Trump on December 21, 2017 declaring a state of national emergency and Deep State panic over its members being subjected to military trials of US citizens. Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.192 Sep 5 2018 16:33:03 (EST) www.youtube.com [26:00] Interesting line of questions? Normal? Military Law v. Criminal Law. Think EO. Think HRC panic. Do you believe in coincidences? You have more than you know. Q What lent credence to Q’s prediction was that the Youtube link posted by Q was very quickly blocked making it very difficult for the general public to hear what Kavanaugh and Graham had discussed. In a previous article, the video’s contents were summarized as broadly focusing on the legality of military trials of US citizens deemed to be enemy combatants. In it, Kavanaugh clearly showed his support for the legality of military trials of civilians during times of war, and his opinion that since the 9/11 attack, the US has remained in a state of war. Essentially, he was endorsing what Q and others have been predicting concerning military trials of Deep State officials based on charges of colluding with the enemy. Kavanaugh’s position did not gain any mainstream media attention but its implications were very clear for Deep State officials monitoring his confirmation hearings. This helps explain the unprecedented level of negative media coverage of Kavanaugh despite no substantiation of the allegations of sexual impropriety against him. Thankfully, another video of the Kavanaugh and Graham’s exchange is available thereby allowing analysis of what they were discussing, and exactly what may soon be unfolding with military trials of US citizens accused of colluding with an enemy during a time of war. The exchange between Graham and Kavanaugh begins at the 2:30:50 mark in the following video: youtu.be “Military Tribunals and Military Law Trump Take On Deep State” drrichswier.com “Benjamin Fulford: Kavanaugh Equals Military Tribunals – Prepare for Change” youtu.be “Deep State Panic, Arrests and Military Tribunals Around the Corner; Robert David Steele” youtu.be Clapper throwing Obama under the bus was only the start! Run, rats, run! |
|||||||||||
|
A "Real" President? So much irony! |
|||||||||||
|
Lord_shiva. . . |
|||||||||||
|
Main Point As for "military tribunals," that is just jaw dropping ignorance only the most Alex Jones worshiping gullible deplorables might fall for. |
|||||||||||
|
Deep State About to Face the Music Dr. Dave Janda retired from medicine to dedicate himself to his red hot radio show called “Operation Freedom.” Janda has top notch political, law enforcement and intelligence sources from years of consulting work in Washington D.C. on healthcare issues. Janda says the recent round of attacks on President Trump from the mainstream media (MSM) show the Deep State/Globalists are panicked that Trump is draining the swamp. Janda explains, “I believe this is not coming from a position of strength on behalf of the fake media, which is a tentacle of the Globalist syndicate. It’s a syndicate that has been responsible for multiple wars and the financial chaos that has occurred across the world.” So, why are the Deep State/Globalists and the MSM in a panic? Janda says military tribunals for treason and sedition are coming for the players who failed to knock Trump out of office by framing him with phony evidence. Does this sound farfetched? Military tribunals were brought up in great detail in this week’s hearing for Judge Kavanaugh. Janda says it’s not been done before and explains, “Lindsey Graham was interviewing Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court appointment process, and what was very interesting as this line of questioning goes on, and it went on between four and five minutes, not one individual interrupted Graham and said what are you doing talking about military tribunals. There was dead silence. Why would Lindsey Graham bring this up? On top of that, we know there are 40,000 to 50,000 sealed indictments. We have actually seen some unsealing of these indictments. . . . Do I think we are in the process of a rule of law reset? Yeah. I have said before these indictments are not going to be unsealed all at once. Some may never be unsealed, but we are seeing the ramifications of them when we see a huge number of folks within Congress, Wall Street, Hollywood just walking away from their jobs. When you look at the number of firings in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, it’s unheard of. This is all part of the reset. I think we are getting ready for a financial reset and a rule of law reset.” Janda says the Deep State is so unhinged about loss of power, wealth and coming prosecutions that they may attack America. Janda says his Washington D.C. sources say, “Here is what they are really worried about. . . . and why there are so many people concerned about what is going on. My sources told me they are very concerned about an EMP event in the near future. That would lead to problems with the rule of law in this country and to the financial markets. . . . They are concerned about an attack from the Deep State, as an act of not power, but as an act of desperation.” www.google.com |
|||||||||||
|
The Justice Department is not a fourth branch of government. This is an obvious statement of fact, but many senior government officials and their defenders in the media appear to need a reminder. While Congress created the Office of the Attorney General with the Judiciary Act of 1789, they didn't get around to forming the Department of Justice until 1870. From day one, DOJ has been an executive branch agency, which means the buck stops with one person: the president. DOJ is not "independent" of the rest of government. It cannot override presidential or congressional authority. To suggest otherwise is to wish for a rogue actor within the federal government that could negate checks and balances. It would appear many of our elected representatives and their on air emissaries need a basic civics refresher. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for one, wrote earlier this week on Twitter that "the Justice Department is not an arm of the White House. It is independent and serves the American people." This is wrong, and one would hope that a five-term senator would know as much. The president does in fact have authority over the DOJ, he can fire the attorney general for any reason or no reason, and Congress has oversight responsibility for all DOJ activities. But Sen. Feinstein is not alone in propagating the myth of a DOJ that ultimately answers only to itself. Former CIA Director John Brennan demanded that GOP officials prevent such "harm done to our democracy" that would occur from President Trump meeting with DOJ officials or requesting an investigation of their conduct. This is just a sampling of powerful Democrats with national-level megaphones who are hellbent on spreading historically and constitutionally illiterate positions in order to prevent greater transparency of the DOJ. As the disclosures about spying on the Trump campaign mount, there is a commensurate effort to effectively mislead the public about not just the facts of Russia-Trump collusion, but who gets access to those very facts based on the very structure of our government. It is this battle over information that threatens a showdown between a foot-dragging, uncooperative DOJ leadership and Republicans in the White House and Congress who've had enough of the stonewalling and selective leaks. Trump's meeting earlier this week with top DOJ officials may calm this storm for a while, but if recent history is any guide, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and his staff will quickly resume their defensive crouch the moment disclosure of some uncomfortable truths are at stake. The real problem here is not Trump or the GOP majority's overstepping of constitutional or ethical boundaries - it is the escalating fear among the anti-Trump left that the American people will be outraged when they find out what has likely really been going on at the DOJ when it comes to 2016 election and anti-Trump machinations. With that in mind, the constantly shifting explanations for why information should be kept from Congress in particular are more than suspicious. Add to this the brazen shift in narrative from "there was no spying to on the Trump campaign" to "of course there was spying on the Trump campaign" and you have a federal law enforcement bureaucracy that is in danger of losing the trust of the American people. Despite the Democrats' current pretenses, DOJ is not the foundation upon which our Republic was built. In fact, few things would be a more clear and present danger to liberty at home than a prosecutorial wing of the government that only answers to the political whims of the moment. The president has every right to request an inquiry into the conduct of the DOJ, and if his actions demand correction, the Congress can impeach and remove him from office. That's the system we have, and it hasn't changed just because Trump won an election. It's time for one of our most powerful federal agencies to stop playing games. No matter how the Mueller special counsel investigation and all DOJ related Russia-collusion matters end, over the last year there has been tremendous damage done to America's perception of a nonpartisan justice apparatus. The only antidote to this affliction is transparency, no matter how difficult or embarrassing that may be for the president's opponents in the federal bureaucracy. And after all - they do answer to him. www.google.com |
|||||||||||
|
There can be no question, at this point, that certain higher ups in the FBI and the DOJ did not want Hillary to be indicted and did not want Donald Trump to become President. Those efforts were not independent of each other. Indeed, some of the same people were involved with both scandals. Below is a timeline of events that places all of the actions in context and makes it rather plain that the FBI and DOJ were not investigating potential crimes objectively. Indeed, they were committing crimes during the process in aid of their preferred outcomes. 2007. Hillary Clinton wanted to be President. Hillary’s ambitions to be president started long ago. She ran for President in the 2008 cycle. In 2009, after losing to Obama, Hillary became Obama’s Secretary of State. She stayed in that post until 2013. March 2, 2015 – The Hillary email scandal breaks. Hillary was using an unapproved/unsecured server and devices to communicate. She was using a private email account. Classified information was being sent through that email, server and devices – including when Hillary was abroad. All of that is illegal. As 2015 unfolds, it becomes clear to the FBI and the DOJ that President Barack Obama (despite his March 7, 2017 claim he found out about Hillary’s email server “through news reports”) was communicating with Hillary using her non-state department email. Obama was using an email and a name that masked who he was. That had to be known to authorities long before March of 2015 given that it occurred prior to 2013. As the probe into the email scandal begins, Attorney General Loretta Lynch directs FBI Director James Comey to call it a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Comey complies even though he later would testify that it made him “queasy.” As Andrew McCarthy points out in his article, there was no chance that the DOJ was going to indict Hillary because that would have required implicating President Obama. That was never going to happen. From thereafter, DOJ officials acted with that understanding, however illegal, in mind. March 7, 2015 – Virginia Governor and Clinton confidante Terry McAullife meets with Andrew McCabe and his wife Jill McCabe. Andrew McCabe as #3 in the FBI at the time. The month before, the Virginia Lt. Governor had recruited Jill McCabe to run for state Senate. March 12, 2015: Jill McCabe announces her run for State Senate. In time, according to the Wall Street Journal, Jill McCabe’s campaign received “slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him.” That represents more than 1/3 of her total donations. April 29, 2015 FBI warns Andrew McCabe about potential conflicts of interest given his senior position in the FBI while the FBI was undertaking an investigation of Hillary Clinton and McCabe’s wife receiving support from a Clinton friend McAuliffe. The memo, “Protocol Regarding Potential Conflicts of Interest,” also “identified several areas where [McCabe’s] disassociation would be appropriate.” It also referenced that his wife was being “supported by the governor of Virginia” and that McCabe had proactively approached Bureau colleagues for guidance. June 2015 Donald Trump announces his Presidential run. ~ ~ ~ July of 2015 The FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails begins. January of 2016 Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration, tells “a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection.” Chalupa continues to do in 2016 and works with Ukranian officials to develop that narrative. February of 2016 February 1, 2016. Andrew McCabe become #2 at the FBI – the Deputy Director “overseeing all FBI domestic and international investigative and intelligence activities.” "When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.” Although that occurs after Jill McCabe lost her election bid in November of 2015, “other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.” March 2016 Trump has enough delegates to claim the nomination. March/April 2016 – “John Brennan start[s] claiming to colleagues at the CIA that Estonia’s intelligence agency had alerted him to an intercepted phone call suggesting Putin was pouring money into the Trump campaign . . . [Brennan uses that, in part] as the justification to form a multi-agency spy operation (given the Orwellian designation of an “inter-agency taskforce”) on the Trump campaign, which he was running right out of CIA headquarters.” April 2016 April 10 – Obama makes clear he does not want Hillary indicted/Says No Political Influence on the Hillary Investigation/Says he doesn’t talk to FBI/DOJ during investigation. Obama, on Fox TV, indicates Hillary did not intend to harm national security. However, intent is NOT an element of the crime she committed. At the time of that statement – made by a sitting President and in plain view of the Nation and more importantly his FBI/DOJ appointments – many witnesses had yet to be interviewed, including Hillary. Also, Obama, during the interview, states that there would be no political influence on the investigation and that he doesn’t talk to FBI/DOJ heads during an investigation. “Chris Wallace: Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, “Hillary Clinton will be treated — as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected. Obama: I can guarantee that.” Obama also stated: “I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.” Keep the word “investigations” in mind for later. April 2016. Hillary campaign and DNC begin funding infamous Trump dossier. To conceal payments for the dossier, Hillary’s campaign and the DNC give money to attorneys who then pay for the dossier – a clear campaign law violation. If that campaign payment had been properly disclosed, the payment for the dossier, and likely the dossier, would have been exposed in the summer of 2016. That disclosure likely would have hurt Hillary’s campaign (exposes her dirty trick play) and LIKELY PREVENT THE USE OF THE DOSSIER to get FISA warrant on Carter Page, which led to other spying and ultimately the Mueller investigation. Spring 2016 Christopher Steele, according to testimony provided by Fusion GPS owner and former Wall Street Journal Reporter Glen Simpson, was hired in the Spring of 2016 – to put together opposition research together on Donald Trump Late Spring” – FBI’s then-director James Comey briefed the principals of the National Security Council on “the Page information.” Just prior to that, candidate Trump disclosed Carter Page as an advisor. Carter Page is a tangential, volunteer Trump campaign advisor with long-time ties to Russia. Carter Page clearly is a Russian sympathizer with a desire to continue doing business in Russia. It is important to note that Carter Page had been under surveillance in 2013 (not clear for how long) by the FBI. Such surveillance must be based on a claim that Carter could be an agent for a foreign government. According to Andrew McCarthy, “Page was one of several American businessmen whom Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit in 2013. Yet, the main reason we know that is that Page cooperated with the FBI and the Justice Department in the prosecution of the Russian operatives. See Sealed Complaint, United States v. Evgeny Buryakov, pp. 12-13 (Page is identified as “Male-1” — whom one of the Russian spies refers to as “an idiot”).” politicalvanguard.com This rest of the crime - point by point - at above link. |
|||||||||||
|
You Got Today the president of the US met with the Deputy Attorney General, who is investigating him over collusion with foreign entities, aboard his plane. Funny how Groper went off on such a rant when FORMER president Bill Clinton spoke to an attorney general aboard a plane. Hypocrisy much? |
|||||||||||
|
Lord_shiva. . . Justice will be observed or thus republic is doomed. |
|||||||||||
|
Military Tribunals for Groper and Company? |
|||||||||||
|
a) FBI/DOJ seek FISA Warrant on Carter Page without first seeking to interview him as required by law. The FISA law states that the warrant can be issued if the needed information “cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques.” Interviewing Page would have been a normal investigative technique. Yet the DOJ/FBI never attempted to interview Page prior to seeking the warrant. b) FBI, FALSELY, stated “in its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application to the secret court that Steele was unaware of who backed Fusion GPS, the firm which hired him, for the research.” c) The dossier was not verified – to this day. Comey told Trump in January of 2017 that the dossier was “unverified.” "Under the subsection “FISA Verification of Accuracy Procedures,” the FBI itself acknowledges that: “The accuracy of information contained within FISA applications is of utmost importance . . . Only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications [FISA] to the court [FISC]. Yet, Comey represented to the FISA Court that the dossier was credible – in part, by citing a Yahoo news story on the matter. However, Comey knew that that story was planted by the dossier author Christopher Steele. In other words, it was not an independent verification of the dossier. “As Isikoff explains, his story was almost entirely based on information from the Steele dossier, which was passed to him by an intermediary. Therefore, citing it would be redundant. The revelation, which was made in a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, “stuns me,” Isikoff said in an episode of his podcast, “Skullduggery.” All in all, Comey swore under oath that the Court should consider the dossier credible evidence so that the FBI could spy on Trump campaign official Carter Page – even though Page had already left the campaign. Given that it was known that Page already left the campaign, it could well be that Carter Page was the fall guy excuse to begin domestic spying on others. Without question, Comey misled the FISA Court by submitting and vouching for the unverified dossier and pushing the Yahoo News story. Those were not the only questionable acts, misrepresentations nor omissions of Comey. The FBI and DOJ, at the time they made the original FISA application, also were aware of the following – ALL OF WHICH WAS HIDDEN FROM THE FISA COURT: a) Hillary’s campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier – a fact which, if known, would give rise to judicial questions of potential evidentiary bias. Instead, they made a vague reference to it having a political origin. **Why didn’t the FISA Judge ask for more details about that? b) Christopher Steele tells a DOJ official Bruce Ohr that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” Another fact that, if known, would give rise to judicial questions of potential evidentiary bias. c) The FBI was willing to pay Christopher Steele for more research but rescinded its offer when the FBI found out Steele had briefed reporters on the content of his dossier – a violation of FBI rules. Thereafter, the FBI ended its relationship with Steele. Any Judge or jury would want to know if someone offering evidence otherwise was breaking rules. It bears on whether the witness can be trusted. d) Carter Page was not considered by the Russians as a credible businessmen and/or figure. Many believe Carter Page was an insignificant player. Wiretapped Russian called him an idiot. Again, this raises the question of whether surveillance of him was really an attempt to get at others. e) A DOJ official’s wife was working for the outfit commissioning the dossier. Another potentially biased individual. Also, in March of 2017, Comey would tell a Congressional Committee that he relied on Steele’s credibility with respect to vouching for the dossier. Really? ** Keep in mind, by this time, the FBI is aware that the Hillary campaign paid lawyers, to give money to Fusion GPS, who gave money to a foreign agent (Christopher Steele), who got information from Russian informants. Yet, the FBI counter intelligence effort was being run on the Trump campaign not the Clinton campaign. politicalvanguard.com This is ALL PUBLIC RECORD now. Those of us who STILL support the president are not going to allow those who acted in thus manner to escape an accounting! No, siree, Bob, and Carol, and Ted and Alice! |
|||||||||||
|
I question that, because it is a lie. The Steele Dossier was only a tiny, and largely irrelevant part of the FISA court submission. "Comey would tell a Congressional Committee that he relied on Steele’s credibility with respect to vouching for the dossier. Really?" If he did say that (I have no reason to doubt it), Steele was a former member of MI6. Why would he NOT be credible? "The FBI was willing to pay Christopher Steele for more research but rescinded its offer when the FBI found out Steele had briefed reporters on the content of his dossier." This, I was surprised to learn, is actually true. Apparently Steele WAS a paid FBI informant, and not all of the payments were rescinded. www.nbcnews.com "The FBI counter intelligence effort was being run on the Trump campaign not the Clinton campaign." Hillary's campaign wasn't colluding with foreign adversaries to upset US elections. Groper's son was offered dirt on Hillary free of charge. That represents a campaign contribution. Hillary's team, in contrast, appears to have OVERPAID for the intelligence they were never able to use. Of course, Republicans themselves created the Fusion GPS assignment in the first place, and (apparently) paid for the lion's share of it. Wasn't "Bob & Carol, Ted & Alice" the name of a 70s soft core porn flick? Ha! Please, IHS--no more of your porn here. This is a family web site. |
|||||||||||
|
This is false. Large portions of the dossier HAVE been verified. The pee tapes are one of the few parts for which there is no corroborating evidence. While Steele felt the story was unlikely, others note Comrade Groper DID spend time at the hotel, in the very room, and LIED about having done so. Why did Groper lie? |
|||||||||||
|
LS Exactly WHAT has been corroborated and who has corroborated it? How do we know that? Currently, I know of NO corroborating evidence... other than your good word. |
|||||||||||
|
Steel Dossier Verified - Citation "Steele dossier: Donald Trump denounced the document as fake, but much of its contents have turned out to be true." The claim the dossier is fake comes from the liar Comrade Groper. It is "fake news." The REAL news is the that dossier has been born out in almost every essential detail--with the noted exception of the pee tapes that Christopher himself doubted would ever be revealed. Putin will have seen the pee tapes, and they were discussed at the Helsinki meeting (most likely). The reason we are free to speculate on this is because our leaders should avoid secret meetings with foreign adversaries with whom they have colluded to conspire against the US. In normal circumstances. |
|||||||||||
|
Softaire! I have NPR, but IHS would dismiss it as "fake news." 1. The FBI has corroborated parts of the Russia dossier 2. The feds collected "valuable intelligence" from Carter Page www.npr.org I think the far more pressing matters are why did Republicans on the investigative committee refuse to interview witnesses or subpoena relevant documents? Why did they terminate the investigation early, before it had completed its work? What did Nunes get in exchange for trading information to the White House? www.esquire.com Trump placed Canadian milk points in NAFTA 2 of benefit to the Nunes Iowa dairy farm (moved from California) which employs illegal aliens galore, and which ICE was specifically banned from raiding. Quid pro quo? |
|||||||||||
|
LS Exactly WHAT has been corroborated and who has corroborated it? How do we know that? There were simply a few statements that I can see you stole for your ideas, but there is nothing of value (corroboration related) in there. Most of it is off on a non related tangent. |
|||||||||||
|
Stole? How dishonorable! |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
