Quote:

---

"corruptly persuade another person" to do what? Do you know?
"fraudulent statements" about what?
etc, etc

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Sadly, your computer skills and reading skills are lacking, or you could have found the answers to these questions yourself by reading the indictment. To summarize for you, Russia is not mentioned as a part of this indictment. Neither is the Trump campaign. Not only that, but this indictment specifically covers the period 2008*2014, well before Trump's campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
GEEBERS: Same shit, same shoveler

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still No Evidence? How long with this Witch Hunt fester?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep hearing that the 18 Clintonistas and Obamanistas that Mueller has hired are digging into 16-years-ago Trump activities.
Is that evidence that there is no evidence?
How else to prove absence of proof than the absence of pursuit of the non-evidence?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That is a great JPEG. And from PBS?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep hearing that the 18 Clintonistas and Obamanistas that Mueller has hired are digging into 16-years-ago Trump activities.
Is that evidence that there is no evidence?
How else to prove absence of proof than the absence of pursuit of the non-evidence?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That is a great JPEG. And from PBS?

---

Russian trolls, spewing the same BS they've been peddling for 3 decades.

Yawn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep hearing that the 18 Clintonistas and Obamanistas that Mueller has hired are digging into 16-years-ago Trump activities.
Is that evidence that there is no evidence?
How else to prove absence of proof than the absence of pursuit of the non-evidence?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That is a great JPEG. And from PBS?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still No Evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still No Evidence.

---

Still No Evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still No Evidence.

---

Still No Evidence.

---

Quote:

---

One of the first things that a serial liar wants to do is undermine your trust in the providers of fact that would check his lies. Trump says ‘Fake News’ ten times a day, undermining trust in news facts, but the president of the United States is also a serial liar.

---

Quote:

---

Trump says ‘Fake News’ ten times a day, undermining trust in news facts, but the president of the United States is ... a serial liar

---

Quote:

---

A tally of Trump’s false or misleading claims found the number was 3,001, which averages out to roughly six lies or half-lies each day. That number has climbed to nine per day in recent months. How can Trump do this without consequences? We have a problem in domains like politics and religion and ethics ....

---

Quote:

---

There is a loss of authority in these areas. There’s no certain or agreed-upon way of getting at the truth.

---

Quote:

---

For most of my adult life, I lived in what was sometimes called the postwar consensus. There were decent ways of doing politics. There were people who might veer toward free markets, and others who might veer a slightly different way, toward state interventions and subsidies, and so on. But basically, there was a general consensus about baseline facts, and disagreements were rooted in those facts.

---

Quote:

---

Things have changed, though. When a proposition is contaminated by politics, truth suddenly flies out the window. The problem is that in politics, people get very attached to hope. They hope for a vision which may or may not be realistic, and may or may not be grounded in truth and facts.

It’s a bit like conspiracy theorists, who actually thrive on the fact that all the evidence points against their theory, because that just shows that the establishment is clever enough to conceal what’s really going on. People get attached to certain ideas and nothing will shake them.

---

Quote:

---

And when convictions start to live in opposition to reason or truth, that’s a very dangerous thing. A great American pragmatist, Charles Sanders Pierce, thought that doubt was such an uncomfortable position that people would do almost anything to seize on a belief or conviction that removed it.

---

Quote:

---

I think that’s what we’re seeing in politics.

One of the first things that a serial liar wants to do is undermine your trust in the providers of fact that would check his lies. If you’re a criminal bent on asserting your innocence, then you undermine trust in the police. You undermine trust in the judiciary. You may be a murderer and a rapist, but you claim it’s the system that’s against you.

This is sort of Trump’s best move: It’s the thing he understands most.

---

Quote:

---

He sprays around accusations of fake news

---

Quote:

---

while knowing full well that he’s the liar.

---

Quote:

---

It’s a tactical move that absolutely works in a media landscape like ours, and he knows it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And I come back to this ... The security-state's biggest claim that RUSSIA!!! interfered with our elections is the "hacking" of the DNC server, and the release of the DNC emails, which exposed a lot of the dirty secrets within the DNC.

a) The FBI NEVER examined the server directly, but instead took a DNC-contracted security firm's (Crowdstrike) conclusions at face value, and

b) The one person who knows EXACTLY where the files came from is Julian Assange, since he received and distributed them.

Unless and until they examine the server and especially unless and until they can question Assange, they know SHIT. It's all smoke and mirrors.

In some previous post, THUGR said that the Senate wanted to question Assange. He opined that Assange would ask for immunity.

Well, I hope they do, and I hope he does.

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

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

You are fucking crazy, Signym. If Trump wanted your a) or your b) he could have hired somebody he trusted, other than the FBI. He could have sent somebody to London to talk to Assage that wasn't FBI.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You are fucking crazy, Signym. If Trump wanted your a) or your b) he could have hired somebody he trusted, other than the FBI. He could have sent somebody to London to talk to Assage that wasn't FBI.

---

This is one of your stupider posts, and considering how stupid some of them have been, that's saying something!

If Trump had done any of that, then whatever information HE brought forward would be just as suspect as Crowdstrike's "analysis" (paid for by the DNC) or Steele's "dossier" (ALSO paid for by the DNC).

Nope, the process needs to be legal and in the public eye. I think that Trump should just declassify the IG's report and whatever else has a bearing on the case, to the extent allowable by REAL security considerations (not just fanny-covering by the agencies involved); offer immunity for Assange's testimony; rip open this whole cabal between Ohr and Strzok and Rosenstein and Brennan; have a REAL investigation done of Hillary and her server and Debbie/Awan and their data and be done with it.

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

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Signym, Trump will not do any of what you suggested.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You've lost track of all of the FBI/DOJ officers who've resigned or been fired. It seems there's a lot of swamp-draining going on which has escaped your notice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Sicced upon with 17 of the most heinous Criminals employed as Government Lawyers, 35 of the worst criminals employed by FBI as Investigators, immunity dished out like candy to those actually guilty of crimes, and after 2 days of deliberations, the first jury cannot negotiate the morass of Fake Charges: clearly scapegoat Manafort was innocent all along.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And I come back to this ... The security-state's biggest claim that RUSSIA!!! interfered with our elections is the "hacking" of the DNC server, and the release of the DNC emails, which exposed a lot of the dirty secrets within the DNC.

a) The FBI NEVER examined the server directly, but instead took a DNC-contracted security firm's (Crowdstrike) conclusions at face value, and

b) The one person who knows EXACTLY where the files came from is Julian Assange, since he received and distributed them.

Unless and until they examine the server and especially unless and until they can question Assange, they know SHIT. It's all smoke and mirrors.

In some previous post, THUGR said that the Senate wanted to question Assange. He opined that Assange would ask for immunity.

Well, I hope they do, and I hope he does.

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

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

You are fucking crazy, Signym. If Trump wanted your a) or your b) he could have hired somebody he trusted, other than the FBI. He could have sent somebody to London to talk to Assage that wasn't FBI. It never happened because Trump doesn't care to know. It is just a talking point. It is exactly like his insisting he would talk to Robert Mueller, but he never did. If Trump wants to clear up any of these controversies, he has to actually clear them up, not talk about it with no action. Again, Signym, you are fucking crazy to not notice that Trump does nothing to clarify any of your points bothering you.

Trump has threatened to shut down Mueller. I want to see him do it and stop talking about it. If it is a witch hunt, he should do it because it is his obligation to the American people to not waste their money on an investigation that can accomplish nothing. Alternatively, he could simply stop talking about witch hunts. That would be a nice change for him.

Trump has also said Manafort is innocent. I want to see Trump pardon Manafort if he is that certain of the truth. Stop the trial today! Don't let Mueller harass Manafort by trials and prisons. Save Manafort, Mr President, and Make America Great Again!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

This might qualify as Stupid Post of the Week - amid heavy competition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

This might qualify as Stupid Post of the Week - amid heavy competition.

---

Quote:

---

That Trump "hated" Obama so much that when he stayed in the Presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he employed "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him" in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit. The alleged incident from 2013 was reportedly filmed and recorded by the FSB[108] as kompromat. (Dossier, p. 2)

That Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to paying bribes and the existence of "embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia. (Dossier, pp. 1–2, 8, 11, 27)

That the Kremlin had assured Trump they would not use kompromat collected against him, "given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team."(Dossier, pp. 11–12) [/quote[ MORE AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

While I was laying in bed and trying to convince myself to get up, thinking of nothing in particular ... I started noodling on this whole "evidence" thing, and it suddenly popped into mind why there is one GIANT problem . . .

---

Quote:

---

That Trump "hated" Obama so much that when he stayed in the Presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he employed "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him" in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit. The alleged incident from 2013 was reportedly filmed and recorded by the FSB[108] as kompromat. (Dossier, p. 2)

That Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to paying bribes and the existence of "embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia. (Dossier, pp. 1–2, 8, 11, 27)

That the Kremlin had assured Trump they would not use kompromat collected against him, "given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team."(Dossier, pp. 11–12) [/quote[ MORE AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
While I was laying in bed and trying to convince myself to get up, thinking of nothing in particular ... I started noodling on this whole "evidence" thing, and it suddenly popped into mind why there is one GIANT problem between the Steele "dossier" and the Trump Tower meeting, and it goes like this ...

According to the "dossier", Trump was compromised in 2013 as follows

Quote:

---

That Trump "hated" Obama so much that when he stayed in the Presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he employed "a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him" in order to defile the bed used by the Obamas on an earlier visit. The alleged incident from 2013 was reportedly filmed and recorded by the FSB[108] as kompromat. (Dossier, p. 2)

That Trump was susceptible to blackmail due to paying bribes and the existence of "embarrassing material" due to engagement in "perverted sexual acts" and "unorthodox behavior" in Russia. (Dossier, pp. 1–2, 8, 11, 27)

That the Kremlin had assured Trump they would not use kompromat collected against him, "given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team."(Dossier, pp. 11–12) [/quote[ MORE AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

---

The "compromising" information against TRUMP had nothing to do with business deals in the USA, tax evasion, or any other crimes that TRUMP may have committed in the USA but was (mostly) limited "golden showers". I just wanted to make that point, that if people here believe the dossier, then they must also realize that shaking the "white collar crime" tree isn't going to yield them DONALD TRUMP, at least not according to the "dossier".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Anyway, the next piece of "evidence" had to do with the Trump Tower meeting, which appeared to be nothing more than a "bait and switch" ... a promise of info on Hillary in which NO INFO ON HILLARY WAS PROVIDED. Instead, there was an appeal to eliminate or modify the Magnitsky Act.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If TRUMP was compromised in 2013, they (the Russians) would have made him aware of the information fairly early, otherwise they would have never convinced him to run for 2016, nor could they otherwise have convinced him to run on a campaign of "making nice with Russia".

And if he was compromised in 2013, and made aware of it at least before he started his campaign for the Presidency, then why would "The Russians" attempt to compromise him .... AGAIN???? in 2016.... laying a trail of evidence that could only derail TRUMP's legitimacy and weaken his utility as their Manchurian candidate?

Each piece of "evidence" negates the other, since it doesn't make sense for both to be true at the same time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If TRUMP was compromised in 2013, they (the Russians) would have made him aware of the information fairly early, otherwise they would have never convinced him to run for 2016, nor could they otherwise have convinced him to run on a campaign of "making nice with Russia".

And if he was compromised in 2013, and made aware of it at least before he started his campaign for the Presidency, then why would "The Russians" attempt to compromise him .... AGAIN???? in 2016.... laying a trail of evidence that could only derail TRUMP's legitimacy and weaken his utility as their Manchurian candidate?

Each piece of "evidence" negates the other, since it doesn't make sense for both to be true at the same time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still No Evidence of Collusion? It's only been a year of the Witch Hunt Fishing Expedition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
It's not even troubling that you feel there is no evidence JSF. It's just absurd and I find myself not caring in the least that you see things that way.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Still No Evidence of Collusion? It's only been a year of the Witch Hunt Fishing Expedition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What JewelStaiteFan means is that Trump is innocent until JewelStaiteFan decides he is guilty." SECOND, Trump is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, based on evidence that supports the allegations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The prosecutors ... have to decide if a crime was committed months before a jury decides." Are you saying mere accusation by a prosecutor is proof of guilt? You DO realize that's a distinctly anti-American position to take - right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The prosecutors ... have to decide if a crime was committed months before a jury decides." Are you saying mere accusation by a prosecutor is proof of guilt? You DO realize that's a distinctly anti-American position to take - right?

---

Before going to trial, does a prosecutor believe that no crimes were committed, but goes to trial anyway so that a jury can look over and double-check the evidence and maybe, just maybe, find a crime that the prosecutor missed or overlooked?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Find me a single defense attorney who has gone to court at some point in their life knowing full well that their client was guilty of the crimes committed.

---

Quote:

---

First, I’ll say that when I heard Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Bob Mueller as a special prosecutor, I didn’t experience the same rhapsody as my capital compatriots. Why?
Three reasons.

First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and that Mueller’s professionalism will supersede any personal loyalty. Okay, but here’s a second reason:

These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic infighting – with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political intrigue....

The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins;

---

Quote:

---

the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources – a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put his conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
LET'S NOT FORGET THAT MUELLER AND COMEY HOUNDED AN INNOCENT MAN IN THE ANTHRAX CASE WHILE IGNORING THE REAL PERP.

---