REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

DOJ Warns Not To Trust Stories Based On "Anonymous Sources"

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 15:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 619
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 16, 2017 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very monent?? Maybe THIS is the problem ...


Quote:

The investigation into ties between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government has now turned to investigating Trump himself for obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported Wednesday ... citing unnamed sources, said the investigation into the president's own conduct began shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/report-special
-counsel-mueller-investigating-trump-obstruction-justice/102865928
/

The article from ZH

Quote:

In a move that stunned many members of the media, on Thursday night Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Russia probe due to Jeff Sessions' recusal and who earlier this week confirmed only he has authority to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller,

**** released an unorthodox statement to be “skeptical about anonymous allegations” following the relentless barrage of news reports emerging from the WaPo and the NYT about the evolving probe into Russia’s "election interference" and possible collusion with Trump, all based on "anonymous sources." ****

"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.

Rosenstein, who many had seen as a Trump foil at the DOJ, did not cite specific reports. The DOJ released Rosenstein’s statement after 9 p.m., shortly after The Washington Post reported that the special counsel was investigating the business dealings of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser. That report was attributed to unnamed American officials.

As we said, the media and punditry was "stunned" by the official statement: the NYT' Maggie Haberman said "Have literally never seen a statement like this." The new leader of the Trump "resistance", Preet Bharara also chimed in, tweeting "Americans should also exercise caution before accepting as true lies about firing of FBI Director & defamation of a war hero special counsel"

To be expected, Rosenstein - who the media was ambivalent about and [then] following his recent testimony in which he said there was "no grounds" to fire Mueller, praised - promptly became the latest pariah for insinuating that the media's Trump reportage may be, in fact, fake news.

As the NYT reported this morning, the "statement aligned with the president’s open frustration with unflattering leaks. Mr. Trump has called stories about the investigation “fake news” and complained on Twitter about a Washington Post report on Wednesday night that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was investigating the president himself for possible obstruction of justice. That story was also attributed to unnamed sources, as was a New York Times article that same evening about Mr. Mueller’s request for interviews with three top intelligence officials."

What to make of Rosenstein's statement?

On one hand, it could be seen as a validation of Trump's repeated allegations that much of what has emerged in press in recent weeks is "fake news." On the other, as some in the media suggested, it could be an attempt to "chill" communications and leaks to the press. Yet others saw this as a preview of what may be another upcoming story. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Epstein who said "If this statement is preemptive: oh, boy, is the story going to be explosive."

Trump has yet to tweet his approval of Rosenstein's comment, although moments ago he did tweet the following:

After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017

He followed up by tweeting "The Fake News Media hates when I use what has turned out to be my very powerful Social Media - over 100 million people! I can go around them"


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-16/stunning-announcement-doj-war
ns-americans-not-trust-stories-based-anonymous-official


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 12:40 PM

6STRINGJOKER


Not exactly an endorsement of what I've been saying all along that I much care for, the DOJ....

But for real... People need to stop putting any trust into anything said by "anonymous sources".

It becomes a way for people on either "side" to believe any possible lie because they want to believe it's true, and the other side to dismiss it as false because it's not what they want to hear.

News isn't even news anymore because of this and the internet, particularly Facebook and Twitter. It's become some grotesque interactive form of entertainment.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 2:44 PM

THGRRI

May the Good Lord take a liking to you... but not too soon!


I find it hilarious SIG started this thread. Her favorite source is zerohedge. A troll site where the writers hide their identities; they post anonymously. She quotes them here in her opening post.

Once again SIG shows us why she should not be taken seriously. No matter what she speaks about she just can't be trusted. She constantly uses anonymous and fake news sources. Posting bullshit is her trademark, and her posts being rejected is always the conclusion.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 17, 2017 6:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Actually, Signy quotes USA Today first. Reading not your thing? Or do you have a problem with USA Today? And if ZH has links to other publications - like the WaPo or NYTimes - do you dispute those sources because they were linked by ZH?




So, out of curiosity THUGGER - setting aside your silly zeal about ZH, do you dispute that the DOJ issued that warning?




Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:08 AM

SECOND

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


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very moment?? Maybe THIS is the problem ...

An explanation from "What Does Trump Want From Rosenstein?" goes like this:

Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire
What an odd statement - that feels consistent with the White House's recent war on leaks
8:49 PM - 15 Jun 2017

DOJ watchers had never seen a press release quite like it come out of the department, and talk immediately turned to what might have prompted Rosenstein — a man not known for making careless public pronouncements — to issue it. According to one theory, at some point after the Washington Post broke the news Wednesday that Trump was being personally investigated by Mueller for obstruction of justice, Trump might have asked — or told — Rosenstein to publicly knock down the story. Maybe Rosenstein’s statement about the folly of trusting anonymous sources was as far as he was willing to go in responding to such a directive. If so, the fact that Trump woke up on Friday barking mad at Rosenstein would suggest it wasn’t far enough.

That’s all speculation though — an attempt to explain a sequence of events that no one, including multiple ex–DOJ officials I spoke to on Friday, can claim to really understand. What we do know is this: Trump has always hated the fact that Rosenstein — a guy he realizes he can’t count on for the kind of “loyalty” he expects — was given oversight of the Russia investigation after the president’s most reliable ally at the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the case in March.

According to the New York Times, Trump has never forgiven Sessions for that decision, which he apparently — and perhaps accurately — believes is responsible for the fact that a fearsome and unforgiving special prosecutor is now threatening him and his family with possible criminal charges.

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/06/what_do
es_trump_want_from_rosenstein.html


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 10:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Why would the DOJ issue this statement now, at this very moment?? Maybe THIS is the problem ... - SIGNY

An explanation from "What Does Trump Want From Rosenstein?" goes like this:

SLATE RESPONDS TO THE DOJ WARNING NOT TO TRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES BY UNTYING ITSELF FROM ANONYMOUS SOURCES AND SHOVING OFF INTO THE MIASMA OF PURE UNFETTERED SPECULATION AND FANTASY


Quote:

Jonathan Lemire @JonLemire
What an odd statement - that feels consistent with the White House's recent war on leaks
8:49 PM - 15 Jun 2017

DOJ watchers had never seen a press release quite like it come out of the department, and talk immediately turned to what might have prompted Rosenstein — a man not known for making careless public pronouncements — to issue it. According to one theory, at some point after the Washington Post


One spewing pipeline of anonymously-sourced propaganda
Quote:

broke the

fake?

Quote:

news Wednesday

from even more anonymous sources

Quote:

that Trump was being personally investigated by Mueller for obstruction of justice, Trump might have asked — or told — Rosenstein to publicly knock down the story. Maybe Rosenstein’s statement about the folly of trusting anonymous sources was as far as he was willing to go in responding to such a directive. If so
I smell a lot of "if" coming offa that paragraph ... and a whole lot of propaganda ...

Quote:

the fact
They have facts?

Quote:

that Trump woke up on Friday barking mad at Rosenstein

He did???? How do we know??? How can very verify? Or is this even MORE anonymously-sourced bullshit? Or just plain bullshit without even the cover of anonymous sourcing?

Quote:

would suggest it wasn’t far enough.
That’s all speculation though

No kidding. Solid bullshit from beginning to end. An entire superstructure of bullshit. Bullshit built on more bullshit.

Quote:

— an attempt to explain a sequence of events neutralize a warning under a blanket of bullshit that no one everyone including multiple ex–DOJ officials I spoke to on Friday, can claim to really pretends not to understand. What we do know is this: Trump has always hated the fact that Rosenstein .... was given oversight of the Russia investigation
We DO know this??? I mean, this is the first I've ever heard of it. Are is the MSM now so confident in their ability to mesmerize the public mind that they can create stories after-the-fact?

Quote:

after the president’s most reliable ally at the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the case in March.

According to the New York Times

Which so far has been another spewing conduit of anonymously-sourced fake news

Quote:

Trump has never forgiven Sessions for that decision, which he apparently — and perhaps accurately — believes is responsible for the fact that a fearsome and unforgiving biased and unprincipled special prosecutor is now threatening him and his family with possible criminal charges.




--

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 12:10 PM

SECOND

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


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

fake?

In public Rosenstein corrected Trump for faking a fact. Trump never acknowledged the correction. He continues to fake it.

Rosenstein did not issue a verbatim memo using Trump’s twisty words dictated over the phone, so when Trump read the final memo that didn’t slavishly follow his instructions, he soiled himself in anger on twitter. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Jun 16
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt. “Rosenstein” is “the man who told me to fire the FBI Director”, except the real Rosenstein did not do what Trump said. “My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination,” Rosenstein said. Did Trump listen when Rosenstein corrected him? No, he did not.
www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/why-trump-attacked-his-own-deputy-at
torney-general

www.thedailybeast.com/rosenstein-to-congress-my-memo-didnt-tell-trump-
to-fire-comey


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 1:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The New Yorker

Why Trump Attacked His Own Deputy Attorney General

By Ryan Lizza
June 16, 2017

On Friday morning, in an astounding tweet whose intent many Justice Department watchers and friends of Rosenstein are trying to discern, the President of the United States attacked his own Deputy Attorney General.

“I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!” Trump tweeted at 9:07 A.M. “Witch Hunt.”

Rosenstein’s reputation for integrity began to fray in early May, when he made a fateful decision to share with the President and Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, his honest thoughts about Comey. At a meeting in the White House that neither Sessions nor Rosenstein has publicly described in full, Trump reportedly asked Rosenstein to write a memo explaining the case for removing Comey as F.B.I. director. According to senators, Rosenstein later testified in a closed-door briefing that he knew before he wrote the memo that Trump would fire Comey. So, Rosenstein knew that Trump wanted to fire Comey.

The “FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice,” Rosenstein wrote, explaining that Comey was wrong to “usurp the authority” of the Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton e-mail case. “As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.” And Rosenstein, knowing that Trump was going to fire Comey, wrote the memo anyway.

To Rosenstein’s friends and defenders, the content of the memo was not controversial. “A lot of prosecutors, whatever their political stripes, said Rod is right about the role of an investigator versus a prosecutor,” Trusty said. “Nobody should be getting up the way Comey did and saying, ‘Here are a bunch of offenses, but we’re not going to prosecute.’ ”

Trump immediately fired Comey and released the Rosenstein memo to the public to explain his decision. Democrats and many lawyers in Washington who had a high opinion of Rosenstein were shocked that he allowed himself to be used by Trump and Sessions in such a blatant scheme to oust the person investigating the President’s own campaign. Senator Chuck Schumer wrote to Rosenstein warning that the Deputy Attorney General had “imperiled” his reputation as an “apolitical actor.” But then, Rosenstein's memo was already described as not controversial.

“The content of that memo is totally in keeping with Rod,” the former Obama official said. “He’s a by-the-book guy, and he was deeply offended by how Comey broke the rules. The thing I don’t understand is how Rod let himself get played like that.” How did Rosenstein get 'played'? He knew Trump was going to fire Comey, and he wrote the memo anyway. The memo, described as 'not controversial', outlined where Comey did, in fact, step over the line.

But Trump and Sessions’s ploy backfired. Some observers suggested that Rosenstein felt used and betrayed by the President and Sessions. Some observers offered personal opinions. Whether Rosenstein was trying to correct a mistake or not, his actions since Comey’s firing have been widely commended. When he appointed Mueller as special counsel to oversee the investigation, Rosenstein’s statement announcing the decision was scrupulously fair to Mueller, the President, and Trump-campaign associates. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination,” he wrote. “What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

In testimony this week, when rumors were spreading that Trump wanted to fire Mueller, Rosenstein, to whom Mueller reports, made it clear that he would not carry out Trump’s order to remove Mueller unless, as Justice Department guidelines say, there was “just cause.”

While Rosenstein has said that he has “no reservations about my role” in firing Comey, So, contrary to opinion, he DIDN'T get 'played'. his actions to safeguard the independence of the investigation and publicly warn Trump that he would not obey an order to fire Mueller may have triggered Trump’s wrath on Friday morning. more speculation Ironically, Trump is now alluding to the fact that Rosenstein was — wittingly or not — a part of the plot to get rid of Comey. Trump may be seizing on that fact as a way to push Rosenstein into recusing himself from the Russia investigation. (Rosenstein has reportedly already raised the issue of recusal internally, at the Justice Department.) If Rosenstein is as by-the-book as this article states, then he may have a justifiable reason to recuse himself.

It is classic Trump: he ensnared Rosenstein That's an opinion not born out by the fact that Rosenstein knew Comey was going to be fired. in a scheme to get rid of Comey. Now that Rosenstein has tried to correct his error and insulate the investigation from further meddling, Trump is using Rosenstein’s role in the scheme to try to push him aside. (If this sounds like a plot from “The Sopranos,” it’s because there were, in fact, several episodes like this.) But, again, assuming Rosenstein does recuse himself, it indicates a cause.

Rosenstein may have only himself to blame if he is sidelined from the investigation by recusal. Despite his mistakes, he is probably the best guarantor of a fair inquiry. (The next person in line, Rachel Lee Brand, the Associate Attorney General, has a background in Republican politics and little experience in criminal or national-security cases.) If Rosenstein is forced to recuse himself, whoever comes after him as Mueller’s overseer will know that Trump is hoping that he or she will be more pliable.

This is full of unsupported opinions - in fact, opinions contradicted by reported facts. And Rosenstein DID IN FACT officially - in a written memorandum - express an opinion about Comey. That in itself is reason enough for him to recuse himself.

Basically, this article doesn't support its own premise. At its heart is a memo Rosenstein wrote expressing an opinion about Comey, knowing that Comey was going to be fired. That memo - described as 'not controversial' - in and of itself would be a reason for Rosenstein to recuse himself, since he expressed an opinion about a person's actions that will be coming under investigation. If he already has an opinion, it would call into question his ability to be an impartial investigator.







Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.

I did mention that right at the beginning of my opening post.

So now, there is is

Quote:

Trump Lawyer: "The President Is Not Under Investigation For Obstruction"

Well, wouldn't you know!

Quote:

On Friday morning, when Trump lashed out at what appeared to be Rod Rosenstein on Twitter, many took his statement as confirmation of last week's WaPo report that Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."

On Sunday, however, Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow made the media rounds to explain that Trump's tweet was not an admission, and that Trump is not under investigation in the probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, adding that the president has not received any notification that he is being investigated.

Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Sekulow said "the president is not under investigation by the special counsel. The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources that were purportedly leaking information to The Washington Post about a potential investigation of the president. But the president, as James Comey said in his testimony and as we know as of today, the president has not been and is not under investigation... let me be very clear here: the president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."

Those five sources should be fired. Not for leaking, but for lying.

Quote:

Todd then asked "if the president is innocent, why is he afraid of this investigation?" to which Sekulow's response: "he's not afraid of the investigation. There is no investigation."

Sekulow later said that Trump was merely reacting to the Washington Post story. "The fact of the matter is the president has not been and is not under investigation," Sekulow said on CBS' "Face the Nation," one of four political shows where he appeared on Sunday.

"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.

In other words according to Trump's lawyer, the tweet in question was just a snide response to WaPo -not a confirmation of - the WaPo story. Which means that Trump will likely follow up with more tweets explaining the confusion that his earlier tweet had sowed even as just prior to Trump's tweet, Rod Rosenstein said not to trust reports based on "anonymous officials".

"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.

Of course, Trump may well be under investigation, however he has simply not been notified yet.

On Sunday, Trump once again lashed out at what he has called an ongoing "Witch Hunt" against him, tweeting "The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,.."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-18/trump-lawyer-president-not-un
der-investigation-obstruction


So, Trump not under investigation (yet) for .... anything.

For those who plug their ears because of the "source" here are more sources saying the same thing


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1990O7
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-lawyer-contradicts-presidents-twe
et-he-is-not-under-investigation-by-the-special-counsel
/



-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So that whole big article in the New Yorker - on top of being filled with obvious disproven assertions, conjecture, opinion, and innuendo - is about something that didn't happen. It's


..................................................


FAKE NEWS !!!!


..................................................


THANKS SECOND! for making sure I get my RDA of FAKE NEWS !!!!, and for doing your part to make sure FAKE NEWS !!!! is well-represented for everyone! (A death that didn't happen ... an investigation that doesn't exist ... I mean really, aren't you all just a little embarrassed about being hoodwinked over and over by FAKE NEWS !!!! ? Haven't you learned yet that you need to double-check your 'sources' and their 'news'? Haven't you figured out that 'they' are lying to you?)




Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 6:03 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.



Naturally - ("don't trust anon sources, therefore don't trust...") so isn't the DOJ's winkie winkie - isn't that leaking? (Yes). And how would one of Trump's lawyers know definitively that Trump wasn't under investigation unless someone at the DOJ leaked, er, told him so? Or is he just grand standing, bluffing?
Face it, this whole "is or isn't" under investigation is bs deflection finger pointing adding up to nothing. In the end it doesn't matter to Mueller & the other 5 investigations. They'll get to Trump if that's where the investigation takes them. And Jarod, and Pence, and any others.
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 6:06 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...



That's the tactic you're going to take now, huh? lol

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:00 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...



That's the tactic you're going to take now, huh? lol



lol, but Jack, you just said: "I know they're full of shit on both sides." So different opinion today?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.= SIGNY

Naturally - ("don't trust anon sources, therefore don't trust...") so isn't the DOJ's winkie winkie - isn't that leaking? (Yes).


No. UNLIKE COMEY who told us all about the Hillary investigation's status, the DOJ is siimply saying ... don't trust anonymous sources. Since just about EVERYTHING that has gotten into NYT, WaPO, and CNN was from "anonymous sources" I guess you could say .... don't trust any of it. That's a pretty broad swath to not trust.

Quote:

And how would one of Trump's lawyers know definitively that Trump wasn't under investigation unless someone at the DOJ leaked, er, told him so? Or is he just grand standing, bluffing?
Please re-read the article, the answer is in there.

Quote:

Face it, this whole "is or isn't" under investigation is bs deflection finger pointing adding up to nothing. In the end it doesn't matter to Mueller & the other 5 investigations. They'll get to Trump if that's where the investigation takes them. And Jarod, and Pence, and any others.
So why do the leakers and the press feel compelled to "do the job" of the investigators and why do YOU (and I don't mean just "you", I mean all of the so-called "liberals"on the board) feel compelled to hyperventilate with every anonymous leak?

Quote:

Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...
I'm not defending Trump, I'm defending our democratic institutions. Because what you're seeing, GSTRING, is a concerted effort of the security state and a complicit press to bring down a duly-elected President of the USA and to undo the validated results of the election process.

I realize that you don't like the results of the election. WELL. WELCOME TO THE CLUB, YA MAROON. I haven't liked the results since 1976. But you don't see ME going along with people who want to bring down the democratic institutions of the United States, DO YOU?

So instead of reading, believing, and amplifying lies and gossip ... because, so far, that is mostly what it's been ... then by all means, tear down this democracy.

Otherwise, get some common sense in your head and see where this is going.


-----------

You too, JOIDIOT. 400 posts in the EVIDENS thread, and all of yours are bullshit. You've managed to flog your idiocy for quite a while. And you STILL have not brought a jot of "evidens" the the board, and it seems you probably won't for quite some time, if ever.

-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:45 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...



That's the tactic you're going to take now, huh? lol



lol, but Jack, you just said: "I know they're full of shit on both sides." So different opinion today?

==============================



I've always held that opinion and I say it all the time.

Just funny hearing you say it now is all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 10:12 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

The most straightforward interpretation of the DOJ's warning NOT TO THRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES, which came RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE ANONYMOUS LEAK THAT TRUMP WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was that THE LEAK WAS WRONG.= SIGNY

Naturally - ("don't trust anon sources, therefore don't trust...") so isn't the DOJ's winkie winkie - isn't that leaking? (Yes).


No. UNLIKE COMEY who told us all about the Hillary investigation's status, the DOJ is siimply saying ... don't trust anonymous sources. Since just about EVERYTHING that has gotten into NYT, WaPO, and CNN was from "anonymous sources" I guess you could say .... don't trust any of it. That's a pretty broad swath to not trust.

Quote:

And how would one of Trump's lawyers know definitively that Trump wasn't under investigation unless someone at the DOJ leaked, er, told him so? Or is he just grand standing, bluffing?
Please re-read the article, the answer is in there.

Quote:

Face it, this whole "is or isn't" under investigation is bs deflection finger pointing adding up to nothing. In the end it doesn't matter to Mueller & the other 5 investigations. They'll get to Trump if that's where the investigation takes them. And Jarod, and Pence, and any others.
So why do the leakers and the press feel compelled to "do the job" of the investigators and why do YOU (and I don't mean just "you", I mean all of the so-called "liberals"on the board) feel compelled to hyperventilate with every anonymous leak?

Quote:

Seriously - I can't believe any of us of any political persuasion is going to defend any of these people...
I'm not defending Trump, I'm defending our democratic institutions. Because what you're seeing, GSTRING, is a concerted effort of the security state and a complicit press to bring down a duly-elected President of the USA and to undo the validated results of the election process.

I realize that you don't like the results of the election. WELL. WELCOME TO THE CLUB, YA MAROON. I haven't liked the results since 1976. But you don't see ME going along with people who want to bring down the democratic institutions of the United States, DO YOU?

So instead of reading, believing, and amplifying lies and gossip ... because, so far, that is mostly what it's been ... then by all means, tear down this democracy.

Otherwise, get some common sense in your head and see where this is going.


-----------

You too, JOIDIOT. 400 posts in the EVIDENS thread, and all of yours are bullshit. You've managed to flog your idiocy for quite a while. And you STILL have not brought a jot of "evidens" the the board, and it seems you probably won't for quite some time, if ever.




Zzzz - you're back top being a boring, predictable contrarian. Don't they teach you any creative writing at Troll School?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 10:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


GSTRING: Zzzz - you're back top being a boring, predictable contrarian. Don't they teach you any creative writing at Troll School?


-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 1:36 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GSTRING: Zzzz - you're back top being a boring, predictable contrarian. Don't they teach you any creative writing at Troll School?



So they taught you how to cut-n-paste at Troll school, how Russian of them.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 3:16 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

G: And how would one of Trump's lawyers know definitively that Trump wasn't under investigation unless someone at the DOJ leaked, er, told him so? Or is he just grand standing, bluffing?
Please re-read the article, the answer is in there.



I looked, I don't see it - where?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 3:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.


no notification


-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 19, 2017 4:02 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.


no notification




So? They are under no obligation to notify the people they are investigating.

Funny enough, Sekulow - who seems to be liked by Trump for his ability to lie out of both sides of his mouth (maybe you like him for the same reason) - actually said BOTH things on camera when you see his various political talk show appearances. "He isn't under investigation..." followed by faux outrage over "he's being investigated by..." He's the perfect lying lawyer for our lying president.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:43 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.


no notification



bump

So? They are under no obligation to notify the people they are investigating.

So you just made that up.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


You asked me why Trump's lawyer would say he's not under investigation. The reason, according to Sekulow, was because he has not received any notification that Trump is. Now, that may be a good reason or not, but that's the reason.

I would assume that sooner or later ... sooner rather than later .... the target of an investigation (especially at the level of President) will learn about it, either because of receipts of subpoenas, official notification, or back-channel communication.

We WERE all told, repeatedly, that the President was being investigated for collusion with "Russians" during the campaign, were we not? It all turned out to be ... what was that word, again? ... a LIE, was it not? A LIE that was willingly promulgated and echoed and amplified endlessly by the media? And by idiots on this board, whose extremely low bar for "evidens" means that they get duped over and over?

And you STILL haven't learned anything? You still willingly swallow the endless swill, the anonymous gossip that the DOJ warned us against?


One of these days, I'll give you my definition of "intelligence" and explain to you why you demonstrate so little of it. But, yanno, you've had six months or so to give me YOUR definition of "intelligence" - giving you a few more months won't make much of a difference.



-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:50 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


So, lying again. You just can't help yourself. Try it now, be honest and say you floated up solid piece of bs as a reason for your posting, that you knew it was sh*t but posted it anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You asked me why Trump's lawyer would say he's not under investigation. The reason, according to Sekulow, was because he has not received any notification that Trump is. Now, that may be a good reason or not, but that's the reason.



Right there ^ You swallowed Trump's lawyer's lying answer as FACT - why? And then you go on to criticize some unnamed people on this board (without evidence), of accepting "A LIE that was willingly promulgated and echoed and amplified endlessly by the media? And by idiots on this board, whose extremely low bar for "evidens" means that they get duped over and over?"

Go ahead, defend your sh*t - who on this board "promulgated and echoed and amplified endlessly" that Trump was under investigation. I for one haven't understood why anyone thinks of that issue as anything but a shiny deflection.
Come on Miss Evidence, let's see it.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would assume that sooner or later ... sooner rather than later .... the target of an investigation (especially at the level of President) will learn about it, either because of receipts of subpoenas, official notification, or back-channel communication.



Look at that weak stuff. "I assume at some point..." Like Trump saying we'll see sometime next week about tapes. It's been a month.

We WERE all told, repeatedly, that the President was being investigated for collusion with "Russians" during the campaign, were we not? It all turned out to be ... what was that word, again? ... a LIE, was it not? A LIE that was willingly promulgated and echoed and amplified endlessly by the media? And by idiots on this board, whose extremely low bar for "evidens" means that they get duped over and over?

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And you STILL haven't learned anything? You still willingly swallow the endless swill, the anonymous gossip that the DOJ warned us against?



More SIGGY made up sh*t. ^

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
One of these days, I'll give you my definition of "intelligence" and explain to you why you demonstrate so little of it. But, yanno, you've had six months or so to give me YOUR definition of "intelligence" - giving you a few more months won't make much of a difference.



One of these days - *snort*!! How Trumpian again. Can't wait - hope you don't forget it.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

One of these days - *snort*!! How Trumpian again. Can't wait - hope you don't forget it. - GSTRING
Are you insinuating that I don't have a definition? Because I assure you that I do; and it's the same one that I've had for years. And over all of the time you've been posting, I've only seen rare moments of it from you.



-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Yanno what? I'm going to tell you my definition of "intelligence" because I'm tired of waiting for you to come up with one on your own. Here it is:

Intelligence is the ability to learn

This might seem straightforward, but it requires explanation, because I said The ability to learn, NOT The ability to be taught. I can teach a parrot to sing the Star Spangled Banner, but so what?

What I'm talking about is the ability to learn things on one's own. Sometimes this means making entirely fresh mental connections between observations, but quite often it means looking at old information in a new way, asking new questions, unlearning something, or changing one's mind. That's what I see very little of from you, G.

Also, it has nothing to do with the internet or smart phones. It's true that both can bring you more information than ever before, but they don't really help you understand what you're seeing (unless you use your brain to simply stop your skull from imploding, in which case- by all means- let your smart phone tell you what to think!) You have to do that all on your own if you want to be considered "intelligent".


-----------

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

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Syria and Ukraine, Catalan and Kurdistan: what do they have in common?
Mon, October 16, 2017 19:42 - 72 posts
Harvey Weinstein accused of sexual harassment, vows to fight NRA, Trump ?
Mon, October 16, 2017 19:38 - 41 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Mon, October 16, 2017 19:18 - 438 posts
The State of Freedom in Russia
Mon, October 16, 2017 18:29 - 32 posts
Draining The Swamp
Mon, October 16, 2017 16:28 - 38 posts
Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
Mon, October 16, 2017 15:57 - 12 posts
POTUS Trump's Greatest Failures
Mon, October 16, 2017 14:17 - 17 posts
Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands
Mon, October 16, 2017 11:24 - 93 posts
The death of the dollar?
Mon, October 16, 2017 10:55 - 16 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Mon, October 16, 2017 10:50 - 13 posts
Breakup of the EU
Mon, October 16, 2017 10:44 - 1 posts
Food Rationing Is Goal of Communists/Socialists?
Sun, October 15, 2017 22:41 - 7 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL