Quote:

---

Republicans Prepare For War With FBI, DOJ: To File Contempt Action Over Anti-Trump Bias

Five weeks ago, House Speaker Paul Ryan accused the DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” the House Intelligence Committee’s wide-ranging subpoena for all pertinent information about how the largely unsubstantiated “Trump dossier” played into the DOJ’s decision to launch the infamous Trump collusion investigation. At the time, the speaker said the agency was preparing to turn over the information requested by the committee, but despite his assurances, the promised documents never materialized.

Then yesterday, thanks to a series of coordinated media leaks, Nunes learned – at the same time as the broader public - about the reassignment of Peter Strzok, a senior Mueller aide who had played a critical role in the DOJ’s original collusion investigation. And before that, Strzok helped lead the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

Upon being blindsided with this information, the Intel committee chairman was understandably less than pleased after being publicly embarassed by the bureau. So in a statement issued Sunday, Nunes announced a serious escalation:


His committee is preparing to hold Andrew McCabe and assistant AG Rod Rosenstein in contempt [of Congress].

Strzok was reassigned in July, shortly before Nunes subpoenaed the bureau for all documents relating to the Trump dossier. Of course shortly after the Strzok news broke on Saturday, the DOJ contacted Nunes to notify him that they were ready to comply with the subpoena. But Nunes said it was too little, too late. He laid out his argument for preparing the order of contempt in a statement released Sunday that outlines the committee's unsuccessful push to convince the FBI to turn over the documents it had requested.

Here’s a timeline of Nunes' contact with the Department of Justice courtesy of the Washington Examiner:

On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee's request for information about Strzok.

In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.

On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)

On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.

On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

Republicans, including President Trump, pointed to the news as evidence that the entire probe into Russian meddling had been politically motivated.

Unsurprisingly, both the FBI and House Democrats have been silent on the issue, according to Bloomberg:

A Justice Department spokesman, Sarah Isgur Flores, couldn’t be immediately reached for comment by telephone or text. There was no immediate response Sunday from a spokesman for the committee’s top Democrat, Representative Adam Schiff of California.

In his statement, Nunes said the FBI and Department of Justice had failed to sufficiently comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena -- including by refusing repeated demands “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.”

Washington, D.C. – House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today amid press reports that Peter Strzok, the top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of collusion between Russia and Trump officials, had been removed from the probe after exchanging anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

"The FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently cooperate with the Committee’s August 24 subpoena, and have specifically refused repeated demands from the House Intelligence Committee for an explanation of Pete Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe. In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility. This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.

“The DOJ has now expressed—on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared—a sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee’s long-standing demands. This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction. Therefore, I have instructed House Intelligence Committee staff to begin drawing up a contempt of Congress resolution for DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Unless all our outstanding demands are fully met by close of business on Monday, December 4, 2017, the committee will have the opportunity to move this resolution before the end of the month."

In the statement, Nunes pointed to “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.

In targeting McCabe and Rosenstein, Nunes explained that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was being excused from any contempt action by the committee because the AG had recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the election.

Over at the FBI, the grim reality of the situation is just setting in, and many senior managers are facing a serious dilemma: comply with all of Nunes’s requests and risk exposing the rest of the agency’s dirty laundry, or resist and face a contempt order. More likely than not, what we’ve learned this weekend represents only one example of partisan skullduggery, which has become a widely recognized problem at the FBI.

In addition to the threat of contempt, Strzok is also facing an internal review for his role in the investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information on her private email server. It has already been revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey drafted his letter excusing Clinton before she had even been interviewed. The Office of the Inspector General probe into Strzok will examine his role in a number of "politically sensitive" cases this year, according to Fox News.

As it turns out, the agent had been reassigned for expressing anti-Trump sentiments in a series of text messages to FBI attorney Lisa Page while the two were having an affair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I thought the "Russia collusion" soft coup was being orchestrated by the CIA. But perhaps it's the FBI.

---

Spoken like a loyal russian troll.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Spoken like "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

http://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hi
t_man.pdf

There is plan a, plan b, and so on, for getting rid of sitting leaders. First you try to bribe them. Then you threaten them. Then you smear them in the media. Next is assassination, junta, and finally, the military.

Trump barely made it into the third step.

---

This ain't russia dummy.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
This ain't russia dummy.

---

Quote:

---

More Anti-Trump Messages Reportedly Sent By Members Of Mueller's Team: "A Lot More Is Going To Come Out"

---

Quote:

---

WSJ Editorial Board Calls On "Too Conflicted" Mueller To Step Down

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI...

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti-Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation.

The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

* * *

Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump.

But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes - Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, speaking of a "politicized" FBI ....

Quote:

---

More Anti-Trump Messages Reportedly Sent By Members Of Mueller's Team: "A Lot More Is Going To Come Out"

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-05/more-anti-trump-messages-repo
rtedly-sent-members-muellers-team-lot-more-going-come-o

---

This shits just to funny. She's at it again.

I am referencing this thread, http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=62024, because SIG more times than not, sources her information that she posts here from zerohedge. She stupidly defends this as a reputable source. Something she does with other unreliable sources. As she continues to do so, I will reference this thread to remind all she posts from this and other corrupted sources. Sources designed to create havoc rather than inform.

Below are the names of those behind zero hedge. Don't miss what I've highlighted in red below. This folks is why comrade troll SIG loves to quote zero hedge.

---

In addition, Lokey said he faced constant pressure to frame stories in-line with a particular world-view, which he described as “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladmir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.”

---

All of this matches SIG's playbook here and Putin's globally;
exactly.

---

T

Quote:

---

Top DOJ Official "Demoted" After Working With Fusion GPS To Push Trump Disinformation-Dossier

Another day, another startling revelation about operatives within the federal government who have specifically worked against the elected president, this one coming in the form of a top official at the Department of Justice being demoted after numerous “contacts” with the opposition research firm that was paid by the Clinton machine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.

According to an exclusive Fox News report, Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at the DOJ before his demotion Wednesday morning which included associate deputy attorney general as well as director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. As associate deputy attorney general his office was “four doors” down from his boss and allowed Ohr to be directly involved in the Trump-Russia investigation.

Ohr not only met with one of the founders of Fusion GPS shortly after the election, he also met disinformation operative Christopher Steele DURING the 2016 campaign.

That’s right, yet another top government official has been exposed as directly working with anti-Trump operatives in a failed attempt at stopping him from getting elected in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Obama Appointed Judge Mysteriously Recuses Himself From Michael Flynn Case

The case against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn has taken a strange turn, as U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras abruptly recused himself Thursday night with no explanation. Contreras is an Obama appointee who also sat on the FISA court while the Trump team was under surveillance by the Obama administration. Judge Emmet Sullivan, an Bill Clinton appointee, was randomly assigned to take over the case after Contreras' recusal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It looks to me like Mueller is "cleaning house" before he brings further indictments. He recently demoted Strzok http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/fbi-agent-removed-trump-investi
gation/ over his anti-Trump texts.

It appears that another DOJ official has anti-Trump ties: Wife of Bruce Ohr, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS.

OF course, Mueller will probably not retract tainted evidence because of the political bias of his staff; for him there's no such thing as "fruit of the poisoned tree".

---

Quote:

---

Glasser: Okay, so, flash-forward a year. Was that a mistake?

Morell: So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

And one of the ways I’ve thought about that, Susan, is—okay, how did Donald Trump see this? Right? And from—it’s very important—one of the things we do as intelligence analysts is make sure that our guy—the president—understands the other guy. Right?

So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, “Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?” Right?

Glasser: It embroiders his narrative.

Morell: Exactly. And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.

And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, “What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?” The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said.

So, when Trump talked about the Iran nuclear deal being the worst deal in the history of American diplomacy, and he was going to tear it up on the first day—John Brennan came out publicly and said, “That would be an act of folly.” So, he sees current sitting director pushing back on him. Right?

Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought—right?—that,

“Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?”

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.

---

Quote:

---

FBI Chief FOIA Officer: "Every Single Memo Comey Leaked Was Classified"

As James Comey trots around the country on his book-selling tour, tweeting bible quotes and nature scenes, a less serene series of events is playing out in Washington D.C. which suggests the former FBI Director may be in trouble over the memos he leaked to Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, allegedly detailing conversations between Comey and President Trump.

While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer disagrees.

While we previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer to that effect:

---

Quote:

---

The CIA Drug Connection Is as Old as the Agency By Larry Collins
Published: December 3, 1993 http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opinion/03iht-edlarry.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clearly, SECOND, holdovers in the FBI, DOJ, CIA etc leaked to the press. Even Morell, former Acting CIA Director, admitted in Politico that's what he encouraged people to do.

There was, he added, a downside to the security state getting "political", one which he hadn't foreseen, and that was that Trump ... when facing a bunch of leakers and backstabbers in the alphabet agencies, might come to see this as a "war" by the deep state is in fact you and me and come to distrust his own intelligence staff.

Quote:

---

Glasser: Okay, so, flash-forward a year. Was that a mistake?

Morell: So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

And one of the ways I’ve thought about that, Susan, is—okay, how did Donald Trump see this? Right? And from—it’s very important—one of the things we do as intelligence analysts is make sure that our guy—the president—understands the other guy. Right?

So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, “Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?” Right?

Glasser: It embroiders his narrative.

Morell: Exactly. And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.

And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, “What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?” The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said.

So, when Trump talked about the Iran nuclear deal being the worst deal in the history of American diplomacy, and he was going to tear it up on the first day—John Brennan came out publicly and said, “That would be an act of folly.” So, he sees current sitting director pushing back on him. Right?

Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought—right?—that,

“Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?”

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.

---

GEE!! WHOODA THUNK!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

FBI Chief FOIA Officer: "Every Single Memo Comey Leaked Was Classified"

As James Comey trots around the country on his book-selling tour, tweeting bible quotes and nature scenes, a less serene series of events is playing out in Washington D.C. which suggests the former FBI Director may be in trouble over the memos he leaked to Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, allegedly detailing conversations between Comey and President Trump.

While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer disagrees.

While we previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer to that effect:

---

MORE AT https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-05/fbi-chief-foia-officer-every
-single-memo-comey-leaked-was-classified

Sounds like Comey belongs in jail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I want to point out that the traditional liberals/ affiliated with Democrats of yesteryear do not at all resemble the NEO-liberals/ affiliated with democrats today.

ETA: your characterizations and responses seem out of date, therefore, misdirected.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
SitRep: Congress Tells Trump They’re Watching Russia;


House vs. Moscow, and Trump in the middle. In a rare display of bipartisan comity, the House on Tuesday passed a measure that would slap new sanctions on Moscow. The package, which sailed through 419 to 3 despite objections from both the White House and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, targets specific Russian officials in retaliation for that country’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, and adds penalties against Iran and North Korea.

The bit the White House most objects to requires the president to obtain congressional approval before relaxing any sanctions against Moscow.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/26/sitrep-congress-tells-trump-theyre
-watching-russia-pence-wades-into-pentagon-transgender-fight/

---

So what happened next. Trump refused to sign the fucking bill. And yet there are those here that still post Trump is being railroaded over this Putin thing.

Where's the outrage from the right. Our self proclaimed country loving right? Come on rappy, JSF, Jack, lets hear the outrage. Sig, 1kiki, what nothing to say.

The bill passed 419 to 3. Why aren't the Republicans balking? Complaining to Trump to sign the bill. Boy it didn't take them long to lose their backbones did it? It didn't take the right long to sell this country down the river.

Why aren't the democrats making more noise. Distracted by the, adds up to nothing memo I guess. America first my ass. Trump is Putin's puppet and he needs to go.

Instead you morons discuss the need to dismantle the FBI. You're all for destroying the rule of law in this country. Of course after you try and distort it to put Hillary in jail. Talk about dipshits.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is far more a power play by 2 branches with each other than anything else. Those not well versed in DC politics will often misread cause -effects of what goes on there, and insert totally non-related purpose.

" The bit the White House most objects to requires the president to obtain congressional approval before relaxing any sanctions against Moscow. "


It's far more complex than merely " 419 - 3 ".

---

Funny how things are far more complicated when it what you want. They passed the bill. Or is it just another bill passed by the right, to appease the right that they never intended to deliver on?

The republicans control all three branches of government. Yet, no oversight into how to stop Russia from interfering in our elections. Hacking into our businesses and stealing our technologies.

No, instead the republicans are engaged in treasonous behavior just to get another conservative judge and more tax breaks for the rich. There's your complicated.

Your dismissal of this as politics as usual is sad.



T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Read your own linked article. It gives very valid reason why any President would not sign on to such a bill, regardless of how his own party voted.

Think outside your bubble, if that's possible.

---

One diplomat said that in order to quiet the concerns of the Europeans. And I quote "Republicans have explained it’s less about Russia and more about Congress sending a message to Trump, one western diplo said." One person rappy out of 419. You need to learn to read comprehensively. One person who had no involvement in creating or voting on the bill offering his/her opinion; meaningless.

Realize as well that diplomats say one thing and Trump always says something else. His message always differs from theirs. Example, Rex Tillerson.

And lets not forget the message sent back to all those who worked on and voted for the bill, by Trumps refusal to sign it. Sorry boys and girls, but you know with me it's Russia first.

No rappy, they need to grow a backbone and put America first. They need to sign the bill. And the democrats need to wake up and realize what just happened. They need to move on from debating the, nothing to see here memo.

It's you rappy that needs to think outside your partisan box.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, you need to think outside your tiny bubble. One answered and gave a response. That's not a serious assessment of ALL in the House. Not even remotely. ALL of them could think exactly like that, but if only 1 SAID it, that's ' one in 419 " ? Stupid logic. And your example doesn't even make any sense. The ' one ' out of 419 isn't even a member of Congress, so no, he's none of 419. Though who can say how many agree w/ his sentiment ? It's a meaningless red herring trail.

Go back to your own article. It clearly gives a valid reason why the President doesn't want to be beholden to Congress. This sort of squabble goes back to the 1700's , and even before.

This isn't Trump or Russia specific. Not even close.

---

What??? Give up the drugs, put down the bottle. There's no guess work behind what I posted. Just facts,,,


One diplomat said that in order to quiet the concerns of the Europeans. And I quote "Republicans have explained it’s less about Russia and more about Congress sending a message to Trump, one western diplo said." One person rappy out of 419. You need to learn to read comprehensively. One person who had no involvement in creating or voting on the bill offering his/her opinion; meaningless.

Realize as well that diplomats say one thing and Trump always says something else. His message always differs from theirs. Example, Rex Tillerson.

And lets not forget the message sent back to all those who worked on and voted for the bill, by Trumps refusal to sign it. Sorry boys and girls, but you know with me it's Russia first.

No rappy, they need to grow a backbone and put America first. They need to sign the bill. And the democrats need to wake up and realize what just happened. They need to move on from debating the, nothing to see here memo.

It's you rappy that needs to think outside your partisan box.




T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
So, I see the pressure got to Trump and he decided to sign the bill after saying it was no longer necessary.

As I've said before to the Russian trolls here When Trumps gone, there will be more legislation like this to come.

Hey rappy, so much for your logic on this. Trump was forced to do it and I was right. You basing your argument on one opinion saying it was just for show was stupid. Do you feel stupid?

---

OK times up, jokes over. Hey kiki, read the date on your link. it's August 2017. Check out the date of my link. It's July 2017. Still, it was fun playing with you and especially rappy.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I want to point out that the traditional liberals/ affiliated with Democrats of yesteryear do not at all resemble the NEO-liberals/ affiliated with democrats today.

ETA: your characterizations and responses seem out of date, therefore, misdirected.

---

Quote:

---

One diplomat said that in order to quiet the concerns of the Europeans. And I quote "Republicans have explained it’s less about Russia and more about Congress sending a message to Trump, one western diplo said." One person rappy out of 419.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:


Hey rappy, so much for your logic on this. Trump was forced to do it and I was right. You basing your argument on one opinion saying it was just for show was stupid. Do you feel stupid?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, you need to think outside your tiny bubble. One answered and gave a response. That's not a serious assessment of ALL in the House. Not even remotely. ALL of them could think exactly like that, but if only 1 SAID it, that's ' one in 419 " ? Stupid logic. And your example doesn't even make any sense. The ' one ' out of 419 isn't even a member of Congress, so no, he's none of 419. Though who can say how many agree w/ his sentiment ? It's a meaningless red herring trail.

Go back to your own article. It clearly gives a valid reason why the President doesn't want to be beholden to Congress. This sort of squabble goes back to the 1700's , and even before.

This isn't Trump or Russia specific. Not even close.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hard to slalom through T's nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I want to point out that the traditional liberals/ affiliated with Democrats of yesteryear do not at all resemble the NEO-liberals/ affiliated with democrats today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What do you consider the traditional?
The Conservative JFK?
Democrat Ronald Reagan?
Or the Pro-Slavery stalwart Democrats/Klansmen before them?

When do you consider the NEO faction to be?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I want to point out that the traditional liberals/ affiliated with Democrats of yesteryear do not at all resemble the NEO-liberals/ affiliated with democrats today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What do you consider the traditional?
The Conservative JFK?
Democrat Ronald Reagan?
Or the Pro-Slavery stalwart Democrats/Klansmen before them?

When do you consider the NEO faction to be?

---

The dems of my era stood for the little guy. They believed in fair chances for all, and a helping hand when needed. They stood for a US peacefully engaged with the rest of the world. NEO-liberals are about at related to liberals as socialists are to NATIONAL socialists. ie, almost exact opposites. NEO-liberals believe in the big military bootprint of their own self-righteousness all over the globe. We'll fix you, they say to themselves, with wolfish delight. NEO-liberals believe in social Darwinism, and the devil take the hindmost. They believe in international corporations, trade agreements, and the US and the EU above all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

---

Quote:

---

Top DOJ Official Involved In Clinton And Russia Probes Steps Down

A senior Justice Department official who was involved in oversight of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as well as the Russian interference probe has stepped down, citing personal reasons.

---

Quote:

---

David Laufman, 59, was the DOJ's chief of the National Security Division's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section - working his way up the FBI ranks after beginning his career in 1980 as a CIA analyst. Laufman obtained a law degree from Georgetown University.

---

Quote:

---

... Journalist Mike Cernovich, who [sounds crazy like a lunatic but has broken several important stories,] broke the Susan Rice "unmasking" story, claimed that Laufman was the source of "several national security leaks" to the media.

Laufman is hardly the first official to leave the DOJ or FBI in recent months. Last week, former FBI Director James Comey's assistant, Josh Campbell, left the FBI in order to take a new position at CNN - Defending the FBI according to a flyer for a party thrown by the agency.

...In late January, James Comey's chief-of-staff resigned as well. Finally, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also stepped down in late January, following what was reportedly a forced retirement according to Fox News.

---

Quote:

---

Clinton Charity Fraud Biggest Scandal in US History – Kevin Shipp

Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says the reason for all the crime and treason at the FBI and DOJ all boils down to one thing–the Clinton so-called “charity.” Shipp explains, “Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial criminal syndicate. She was using these secret servers to conduct Clinton financial money laundering business. The shocking thing about that is all the former directors of the CIA that have come out to support her, from Clapper to Brennan to Morell to Robert Gates supporting her being elected, knew about this criminal syndicate. Comey was protecting it. Lynch was protecting it. Weissmann was protecting it. And that is the big why. What’s she got on these people? Are they financial ties? They had to be aware of this, especially the counter-intelligence units. We know it was hacked into by foreign intelligence services because it was just hanging out there. Hillary Clinton was running a secret server outside the Department of State for the purposes of laundering money through the criminal Clinton Foundation.”

Are the crimes and treason of the Clinton Foundation the anvil that is about to drop? Shipp says, “It’s not just an anvil, I think it is a mountain and the nexus of everything. This “Clinton Global Initiative” (CGI) is worldwide, and it’s been out there for a couple of decades. It has now intertwined former Directors of the CIA and FBI. George Soros is a part of it. It’s connected to all kinds of global financial institutions. . . . It is at least a $100 billion. . . . All these people protecting and defending Hillary Clinton and knowing about her criminal syndicate, this goes into the so-called “Deep State” of our government, and it is connected, involved and intertwined in the global criminal crime syndicate called the Clinton Foundation. This is probably going to be the biggest scandal in U.S. history–once it’s busted. I think they are quietly working on it now, and I think they have been for the last year. It is so huge the arrests and indictments could cause a Constitutional crisis with some people being removed. Maybe that’s why they are moving slowly. It all comes back down to the Clinton Foundation and the criminal syndicate.”

Is former President Obama involved with the Clinton crime syndicate? Shipp says, “Yes, I am absolutely convinced of it. George Soros gave $30 million to Obama’s campaign. Then he gave $27.1 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Both Obama and Clinton are tied directly into George Soros. Obama was put into office with millions of dollars that came out of nowhere. Yes, he’s part of this cabal. Yes, he’s part of this global syndicate, and in my opinion, the subversion of our government.”

In closing, Shipp contends, “There could be a Constitutional crisis in that we could see Congressmen, Senators, former Directors of the FBI and the CIA perp walked after they receive charges. Could you imagine if senior DOJ officials were arrested, some Congressmen and Senators were arrested and other government officials were arrested on charges and walked out of office? That’s the Constitutional crisis I am talking about. Those kind of high level arrests would shake up this nation. It would be huge, and that’s why it has taken so long and methodical in doing this.”

---