DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[GG]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Any sovereign nation collaborating would be committing an act of war.

 

In this case England, Italy, France, Australia, and several others. 

 

Committing an act of war defines them as an enemy.

 

However, enemies can be both foreign *or* domestic.

 

Let’s take a step back.  What actions would one have to take to be considered a domestic enemy?  The attempted overthrow of the legitimate government wouldn’t rise to those standards?

 

Also, it does not matter if they thought they were justified because they *really, really, really* disliked the guy who won.  That’s not justification.  That’s motive.

 

In reading up the application of treason under US laws it appears that it's exclusively applied during actual wars.   So to apply treason in this case, you would need to make a case that US is in a war with Australia, Italy, UK along with Russia.   I don't think anybody wants to go down that road, when there are plenty of other charges that can be levied.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Sedition

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Sedition

 

This would be correct.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? 

You should go back to the Kiddie Table before you lose your chair hi-chair.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? 

 

By posting adds on Facebook?

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So did Russia commit an act of war in 2016? 

Getting a Facebook page about Jesus arm wrestling satan isn't an act of war.  

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

In reading up the application of treason under US laws it appears that it's exclusively applied during actual wars.   So to apply treason in this case, you would need to make a case that US is in a war with Australia, Italy, UK along with Russia.   I don't think anybody wants to go down that road, when there are plenty of other charges that can be levied.

How about just Australia?  I always hated Franz Klammer.  Overrated.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by 4merper4mer

[GG]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

How about just Australia?  I always hated Franz Klammer.  Overrated.

 

 

 

Is he the one who drew the cartoon about the German kids?

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

By posting adds on Facebook?

 

You knew they did more than that. You are such a sh it head sometimes

31 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You should go back to the Kiddie Table before you lose your chair hi-chair.

You are such a light weight POS

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

You knew they did more than that. You are such a sh it head sometimes

 

 

And what would that be?

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Sedition

 

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

This would be correct.

 

Sort of.  It seems as though "force" is an element.

I looked at that yesterday when this conversation got started. Strictly speaking, not really:

 

US Code Section 2384 is Seditious Conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Is he the one who drew the cartoon about the German kids?

 

I think you're thinking of Kukla Franz and Ollie.

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Sort of.  It seems as though "force" is an element.

I looked at that yesterday when this conversation got started. Strictly speaking, not really:

 

US Code Section 2384 is Seditious Conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 

 

 

It kind-of depends on whether you think "by force" applies to "to destroy" alone, or to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy" together.

 

Given that the title of the code is "Seditious Conspiracy," I'd take the position that force is not a necessary element of sedition, as you can have a conspiracy without force involved.

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And what would that be?

Again? You are seriously so stupid you don't know anything else the Russians did? I've explained it to you before. 

 

 

Why are you even on a politics board if you have no memeory or ability to remember basic facts? 

 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Again? You are seriously so stupid you don't know anything else the Russians did? I've explained it to you before. 

 

 

 

Well then you can link to it, can't you?

[snafu]

23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It kind-of depends on whether you think "by force" applies to "to destroy" alone, or to "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy" together.

 

Given that the title of the code is "Seditious Conspiracy," I'd take the position that force is not a necessary element of sedition, as you can have a conspiracy without force involved.

 

Well, unless I'm missing something in my 30 second google search, it looks like the "sedition" part of the 1918 Sedition Act was repealed.  I can't find any other current statute that defines Sedition.  That old definition certainly didn't have an element of force to it.  Maybe (partly for the reason I lay out below) that's why it was repealed.

 

And I lean the other way in my reading of the Seditious Conspiracy section.  You're right that a conspiracy can exist without force, but it reads as though the plot that the co-conspirators are hatching is to overthrow by force.  We can't just agree that the President has to go, and then come up with a benign plan.  A vast portion of the country would literally be guilty of Sedition today.  Again, I think that force needs to be an element because without it, the administration can move right on to a civil conflict predicated on people talking about how bad they want the President to go, and even #resisting.

 

You can make a case for Antifa, perhaps, but I don't think you can for the likes of Page and Strzok.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by snafu

[Tiberius]

54 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Well then you can link to it, can't you?

Well yes I can, but what difference will this make with you? Have at it, it's the whole first part here that describes the sustained and intense efforts by Russia to help your boy Trump. 

 

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

[Deranged Rhino]

Tibs posts Volume I, which lays out how there's no proof of conspiracy/collusion/coordination between any American and Russia as proof of Russia's plan to help Trump.  

 

Pro tip: Read what you're posting before you post it. It helps avoid errors such as this. 

 

The truth of the 2016 election is that Russia meddled, as did a number of other countries, but to limited effect. The biggest impact on the election came from the meddling of the Obama White House and its intelligence services, working with our allies to thwart the will of the people. 

 

That's what the evidence shows, and it's incontrovertible. 

 

[GaryPinC]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Any sovereign nation collaborating would be committing an act of war.

 

In this case England, Italy, France, Australia, and several others. 

 

Committing an act of war defines them as an enemy.

 

However, enemies can be both foreign *or* domestic.

 

Let’s take a step back.  What actions would one have to take to be considered a domestic enemy?  The attempted overthrow of the legitimate government wouldn’t rise to those standards?

 

Also, it does not matter if they thought they were justified because they *really, really, really* disliked the guy who won.  That’s not justification.  That’s motive.

 

Yes, let's back up.  First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached.  If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup.  None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government.  Where's the treason?  

 

Act of war?  England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war?  Are you insane?  Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud?  Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us?  Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant.   Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason.

 

I am no lawyer so feel free to discuss but let's do the dime tour.  Treason in the United States:

SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

 

Levying war against the US:  The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.

 

Enemies:   enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States

 

Hostilities:    The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war.

 

The laws of War:  the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force; the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims in both international and non-international armed conflict; belligerent occupation; and the relationships between belligerent, neutral, and non-belligerent States.

 

So, to answer your question, an enemy of the United States (whether foreign or domestic) is engaged or has engaged in armed force or violence against the US or its citizens, etc.  And people who aid and support these enemies are also guilty of treason.

 

Where has that happened here?  There is no treason.

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

 

Yes, let's back up.  First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached.  If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup.  None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government.  Where's the treason?  

 

The entire point of the Trump/Russia disinformation campaign was to overthrow a legally elected POTUS by invalidating the election itself. 

The second goal, if the first were to fail, was to hobble the incoming POTUS's ability to set his own foreign policy. 

 

The first is seditious treason. 

The second is good old fashioned sedition. 

 

2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 

Act of war?  England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war?  Are you insane?  Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud?  Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us?  Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant.   Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason.

 

The intelligence services of Australia, England, and Canada actively worked to subvert the otherwise legal and fair election of 2016. 

 

Why is it that the charges of Russia meddling -- which we now know were overblown by a great deal -- were considered acts of war by many in the media, and an "attack on our democracy", but several ALLIED intelligence agencies efforting to subvert our legal election does not rise to that same level? 

 

We're not at war with Russia either... yet when they are accused of doing it, it's war. When we are BETRAYED by our allies and elected officials, it's somehow less? 

 

Nope. Can't sell that dog.

 

 

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 

Yes, let's back up.  First off, there's a yuge difference between overthrowing a legitimate government versus attempting by fraudulent means to have a president impeached.  If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president there is no governmental overthrow and certainly no coup.  None of his fraudulent accusers have assumed power politically, militarily, or altered our system of government.  Where's the treason?  

 

Act of war?  England, Italy, France, Australia committed an act of war?  Are you insane?  Did citizens and agents within these countries play a role in this fraud?  Where does this balloon into entire countries committing acts of war against us?  Please realize the fact that since we are still on friendly terms with all these countries, maybe you should reconsider your take on this as being too extreme and ignorant.   Our country and certainly congress do not recognize these as acts of war, even if they did it is not done by force so no treason.

 

I am no lawyer so feel free to discuss but let's do the dime tour.  Treason in the United States:

SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

 

Levying war against the US:  The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.

 

Enemies:   enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States

 

Hostilities:    The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war.

 

The laws of War:  the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force; the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims in both international and non-international armed conflict; belligerent occupation; and the relationships between belligerent, neutral, and non-belligerent States.

 

So, to answer your question, an enemy of the United States (whether foreign or domestic) is engaged or has engaged in armed force or violence against the US or its citizens, etc.  And people who aid and support these enemies are also guilty of treason.

 

Where has that happened here?  There is no treason.

 

 

 

 

 

here in the 21st century, the definition of what constitutes war is drastically different than what it was in the 18th century with technology playing a major role in that.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[GaryPinC]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The entire point of the Trump/Russia disinformation campaign was to overthrow a legally elected POTUS by invalidating the election itself. 

The second goal, if the first were to fail, was to hobble the incoming POTUS's ability to set his own foreign policy. 

 

The first is seditious treason. 

The second is good old fashioned sedition. 

 

 

The intelligence services of Australia, England, and Canada actively worked to subvert the otherwise legal and fair election of 2016. 

 

Why is it that the charges of Russia meddling -- which we now know were overblown by a great deal -- were considered acts of war by many in the media, and an "attack on our democracy", but several ALLIED intelligence agencies efforting to subvert our legal election does not rise to that same level? 

 

We're not at war with Russia either... yet when they are accused of doing it, it's war. When we are BETRAYED by our allies and elected officials, it's somehow less? 

 

Nope. Can't sell that dog.

 

 

Sedition can be argued.  But there is no violence or weapons associated with these acts so there is no treason.  US law was written this way in deference to kings and totalitarians using "treason" to persecute their "enemies".

 

The intelligence services?  No, can't sell that dog unless you can prove an organizational effort from the top down.  Just because you enjoy conspiracies doesn't mean every individual act is a indicative of a systemic conspiracy.

 

Russian meddling, absent any proof of vote corruption, was simply a political stunt and I think you know that all too well.  I don't give a damn what the media tries to say, even if Russia had managed to hack our system and significantly affect the vote count I doubt we declare war on them militarily.

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

here in the 21st century, the definition of what constitutes war is drastically different than what it was in the 18th century with technology playing a major role in that.

How so?  I mean, the weapons have gotten more advanced and remotely controlled but it still involves forcible acts of violence against people and countries.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

Sedition can be argued.  But there is no violence or weapons associated with these acts so there is no treason.  US law was written this way in deference to kings and totalitarians using "treason" to persecute their "enemies".

 

We've been at war for 18 years -- and that definition is very broad. 

 

Trump ran on ending that war -- and was stymied by intelligence agencies, spooks, and members of groups profiting from said wars. The attack was designed to prevent peace, and extend perma war. 

 

That, to me, is an act of open hostility. And a case can be made for it. 

 

2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 

The intelligence services?  No, can't sell that dog unless you can prove an organizational effort from the top down.  Just because you enjoy conspiracies doesn't mean every individual act is a indicative of a systemic conspiracy.

 

 

It's not conspiracy theory, there's mountains of evidence to prove the intelligence services were weaponized on 44's order. 

 

This isn't theory, it's just good old fashioned conspiracy. 

 

Brennan ran it (top down)

Clapper assisted (top down)

Richard Dearlove and Robert Hannigan ran point in Europe (MI6 and GCHQ top down)

 

Just because you're unaware of the facts of the case, doesn't mean these facts don't exist. All of the above can be, and has been, proven in OS. 

 

4 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Russian meddling, absent any proof of vote corruption, was simply a political stunt and I think you know that all too well.  I don't give a damn what the media tries to say, even if Russia had managed to hack our system and significantly affect the vote count I doubt we declare war on them militarily.

 

And yet -- that's been the push by every major media outlet and most of the "resist" crowd for three years. 

 

When Russia does it, it's "an act of war on our democracy"  -- when Obama and our allies do it, "it's not anything to worry about" 

 

Can't sell that. 

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

... How so?  I mean, the weapons have gotten more advanced and remotely controlled but it still involves forcible acts of violence against people and countries.

from the CIA itself:

The New Face of War: How War Will Be Fought in the 21st Century

... future wars will not be won by having more atoms (troops, weapons, territory) than an opponent, but by having more bits . . . of information. ...

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

from the CIA itself:

The New Face of War: How War Will Be Fought in the 21st Century

... future wars will not be won by having more atoms (troops, weapons, territory) than an opponent, but by having more bits . . . of information. ...

 

Actually, that's a book review of a book by Bruce Berkowitz.

 

Which is on my bookshelf.  I've read it.  Berkowitz is an #######.  If that's your source for defining "treason," you have much bigger, Tiberius-shaped issues.

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Actually, that's a book review of a book by Bruce Berkowitz.

 

Which is on my bookshelf.  I've read it.  Berkowitz is an #######.  If that's your source for defining "treason," you have much bigger, Tiberius-shaped issues.

my point is that the wars of today are not just fought on the battlefield. more often than not they will begin in cyberspace and effectively be fought there as well.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, Foxx said:

my point is that the wars of today are not just fought on the battlefield. more often than not they will begin in cyberspace and effectively be fought there as well.

 

You're oversimplifying a good number of legal, philosophical, and practical issues that I don't have time to address right now aside from pointing out that you still don't want to be referencing that ####### Berkowitz to make that point.

[Foxx]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You're oversimplifying a good number of legal, philosophical, and practical issues that I don't have time to address right now aside from pointing out that you still don't want to be referencing that ####### Berkowitz to make that point.

let's say for example that i send malicious code to blow up nuclear reactor, Taishan in China. no force was involved other than sending bytes of information via cyber space. act of war or not?

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

let's say for example that i send malicious code to blow up nuclear reactor, Taishan in China. no force was involved other than sending bytes of information via cyber space. act of war or not?

 

It depends.

 

Instead, let's say you send malicious code to blow up Iranian centrifuges.  Act of war?  The Iranians thing so.  Levying war?  Maybe.  Actual "war?"  We don't think so.

 

Or, let's say you freeze Japanese assets and embargo oil exports to them after they invade Indochina.  Act of war?  The Japanese thought so.  We, on the other hand, insist it was Pearl Harbor.

 

Or let's say you embargo all trade with Great Britain from continental Europe?  England thought that was an act of war.  Napoleon, not so much.

 

Or let's say you shave the beards of Temujin's ambassadors...

 

These considerations are neither new, nor clear-cut.

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It depends.

 

Instead, let's say you send malicious code to blow up Iranian centrifuges.  Act of war?  The Iranians thing so.  Levying war?  Maybe.  Actual "war?"  We don't think so.

 

Or, let's say you freeze Japanese assets and embargo oil exports to them after they invade Indochina.  Act of war?  The Japanese thought so.  We, on the other hand, insist it was Pearl Harbor.

 

Or let's say you embargo all trade with Great Britain from continental Europe?  England thought that was an act of war.  Napoleon, not so much.

 

Or let's say you shave the beards of Temujin's ambassadors...

 

These considerations are neither new, nor clear-cut.

the one thing all of your scenarios have in common is that those on the receiving end would consider those acts as acts of war. conversely, typically, the sending parties, not so much in deference to their biases. i contend that if i sent code that blew up a nuclear reactor, it would be an act of war regardless of the rationale used by anyone. historical definitions change with time. what applied over two hundred years ago can and will become dated and immaterial, it is just the force of nature.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[GaryPinC]

47 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the one thing all of your scenarios have in common is that those on the receiving end would consider those acts as acts of war. conversely, typically, the sending parties, not so much in deference to their biases. i contend that if i sent code that blew up a nuclear reactor, it would be an act of war regardless of the rationale used by anyone. historical definitions change with time. what applied over two hundred years ago can and will become dated and immaterial, it is just the force of nature.

That's the point I was trying to make to you.  It's the end effect on a country and its people.  You blew up a nuclear reactor with a weapon, it's an act of war because you inflicted violence and harm on another country.  Doesn't matter the weapon.  Certainly the definition of war will change because of the technology.  Hardship, physical and mental harm will all have to be accounted for.  The weapons are changing but it's the target and harm inflicted that truly define an act of war.  

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

We've been at war for 18 years -- and that definition is very broad. 

 

Trump ran on ending that war -- and was stymied by intelligence agencies, spooks, and members of groups profiting from said wars. The attack was designed to prevent peace, and extend perma war. 

 

That, to me, is an act of open hostility. And a case can be made for it. 

 

 

It's not conspiracy theory, there's mountains of evidence to prove the intelligence services were weaponized on 44's order. 

 

This isn't theory, it's just good old fashioned conspiracy. 

 

Brennan ran it (top down)

Clapper assisted (top down)

Richard Dearlove and Robert Hannigan ran point in Europe (MI6 and GCHQ top down)

 

Just because you're unaware of the facts of the case, doesn't mean these facts don't exist. All of the above can be, and has been, proven in OS. 

 

 

And yet -- that's been the push by every major media outlet and most of the "resist" crowd for three years. 

 

When Russia does it, it's "an act of war on our democracy"  -- when Obama and our allies do it, "it's not anything to worry about" 

 

Can't sell that. 

Your definition of war is definitely very broad.  But again, 44 had no authority to weaponize foreign intelligence agencies.  Just because there were higher up people involved doesn't prove it was a concerted national government effort to use MI6 and GCHQ against Trump.  A small group of people is certainly a conspiracy, but doesn't make it a broad based national conspiracy, or entire agency conspiracy.   Back in the US, you think there are many, many other agents besides Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Strozk and the rest of the known bad guys knowingly trying to do this to Trump?  Or was this the main group and subordinates acting under orders not fully aware of the false basis and lies behind it?

 

I just prefer to wait for actual evidence as to how broad it really was because I believe a lot of foreign help was connections to the USIC bad guys and a dislike of Trump, nothing more.  I also believe most of the significant US protagonists have been identified and most of the lower agents unknowingly assisted.  But we'll see.

 

Also, we're mostly on the same page about the conspiracy and Russia/Obama media dichotomy.  Obama and our IC's behavior is definitely the most frightening part.  

 

And I'm not ready to believe that Trump ran on ending your shadow war.  Most people like me voted for him because we hated Hillary more and having a businessman outsider to rile the morass of government was a good thing, not specifically because of "fighting the deep state".  I'm not saying you're wrong, but more needs to unfold before I acknowledge that your perspective is the correct one.

[Deranged Rhino]

17 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Your definition of war is definitely very broad. 

 

Not my definition. Congress's. 

 

Difference. 

 

18 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

But again, 44 had no authority to weaponize foreign intelligence agencies.  Just because there were higher up people involved doesn't prove it was a concerted national government effort to use MI6 and GCHQ against Trump.

 

There is a mountain of evidence that proves this was a concerted effort on behalf of the leadership of intel agencies around the world, tapped by 44/Brennan directly for the specific purposes of getting around the constitution. 

 

He bullied them into compliance through blackmail. 

 

Ask how that squares with what's happening over a phone call to the Ukraine. 44 weaponized his own intelligence agencies -- and then foreign allies -- to spy on his political opposition in order to influence the election. This is fact, not theory. 

 

And it's what the past 3 years has all been about. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

A small group of people is certainly a conspiracy, but doesn't make it a broad based national conspiracy, or entire agency conspiracy. 

 

So it's only problematic if every single agent or officer is involved and briefed? These were the heads of the agencies. Not only deputies. Not only deputy directors -- but the heads of the intel agencies, and the executive branch itself, working in concert to get around that pesky constitution. 

 

It was the same internationally:

Robert Hannigan is not a low level guy. 

Richard DearLove is not a low level guy. 

 

Just like:

John Brennan is not a low level guy. 

Clapper is not a low level guy. 

Comey is not a low level guy. 

John Kerry is not a low level guy.

 

This was a backdoor coup from the very top. Backed by the sitting US president because he disagreed with whom the people chose as leader and feared his own legacy would be exposed as fraudulent if something wasn't done. 

 

That's as un American as it gets. I'm not a partisan -- I'm a patriot. There's more of us than there are of partisans. And more people than you think are seeing through this nonsense now, more clearly than at any point in our history before. 

 

That's why the next year will be very, very difficult for many. 

 

22 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 Back in the US, you think there are many, many other agents besides Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Strozk and the rest of the known bad guys knowingly trying to do this to Trump?  Or was this the main group and subordinates acting under orders not fully aware of the false basis and lies behind it?

 

Brennan and Clapper broke protocol to form a fusion team of FBI/CIA agents to do this investigation. The very first question you should ask is why.

 

After 9/11, the IC underwent rigorous internal changes in terms of expanding their inter agency information sharing . This was done because a large part of the failure on 9/11 was attributed to agencies not sharing intel with one another in a timely fashion. This allowed confirmation bias to take root, and lead to mistake after mistake.

 

In early 2016, Brennan and Clapper -- on the orders of Obama -- undercut these protocols to keep information close to the vest. They didn't want to share it with anyone who would offer a counter point of view -- because their job wasn't to properly and fairly investigate Trump (if it were, he would have received a defensive briefing, but he did not), but to ENTRAP Trump and smear him with scandal to sink his campaign (at first), then once he won, to hobble if not undo his entire presidency. 

 

We're not talking about a big number of people. 2 dozen in the DOJ have already been exposed and fired/removed/demoted/await charges. Two dozen in just the FBI/DOJ alone -- and the lowest ranking member of that crew was the head of public relations for the FBI. Everyone else was a SAIC or higher. Suits on the 7th floor. We are talking about 25-40 each in the DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA, State Department.

 

Not low level agents and officers, but directors and cabinet members. 

 

This is not me making stuff up. It's largely proven in just what we can see in OS, just imagine what Durham and Horowitz have found...  

 

25 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

I just prefer to wait for actual evidence as to how broad it really was because I believe a lot of foreign help was connections to the USIC bad guys and a dislike of Trump, nothing more.  I also believe most of the significant US protagonists have been identified and most of the lower agents unknowingly assisted.  But we'll see

 

Why wait? The evidence is already there to see. Start here: 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

This is an opinion memo from the FISC itself. It's not a partisan document. It was compiled after Obama's own head of NSA found discrepencies within the FBI and DOJ's searches of US Citizen's private data. Information which the law denies them access to without a warrant.

 

Pay close attention to pages 82-85 and learn what the FBI-CID is and the DOJ-NSD. This document is acknowledging that 80% of searches run by these two (small) departments were illegal and done by private contractors, not FBI/DOJ personnel. Those private contractors include Fusion GPS and CrowdStrike. 

 

Both of whom were/are on the DNC's payroll. 

 

That document is what started the whole thing, not any fear of Russian interference. In fact, Russia meddling was not a story at all in the media or political circles until AFTER this document was written. The previous administration was caught red handed subverting the constitution so the PRESIDENT of the United States could spy on his political opponents since at least 2012.

 

Not just Trump, but multiple campaigns, congress, media, and private citizens.

 

That's what they are desperately trying to hide and obsfucate with "look over here!" tactics and projection. Literally everything they're accusing Trump of having done on that call with the president of the Ukraine was standard procedure under the Obama administration. It was learned behavior from the W administration: he who holds the keys to the digital data on NSA servers, controls the kingdom.

 

They took that to heart.

 

This is the stuff of a soviet state, not the USA. 

 

28 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Also, we're mostly on the same page about the conspiracy and Russia/Obama media dichotomy.  Obama and our IC's behavior is definitely the most frightening part.  

 

I understand we're closer than we are apart on this issue -- and my directness is not meant to be read as anything other than cutting to the chase because I know you're an adult capable of a conversation with someone you might otherwise disagree with. You've proven in the past you're able to think for yourself, and that's all I ask. I'm not asking you to believe my word alone. I'm asking you to believe what you read/learn/discern for yourself from evidence which exists, but has largely been kept in the shadows for 3 years. If you examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than I have, so be it. No shame in that.  

 

29 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

And I'm not ready to believe that Trump ran on ending your shadow war.  Most people like me voted for him because we hated Hillary more and having a businessman outsider to rile the morass of government was a good thing, not specifically because of "fighting the deep state". 

 

I've never once argued that's what people voted for. Most were unaware of this whole conflict (most still are).  

 

What I have laid out is how, once elected, this shadow war has bubbled to the surface in various ways which allows us, the people, to peer behind the curtain and see the inner workings of the true machine running the show. The sides in this conflict are pretty clear, and the ongoing conflict has become much more transparent than even I thought it would in 2016. 

 

Think about the progression we've seen in the past three years -- "there is no deep state" to "the deep state is real but the good guys!" The very same media that spent 2 years saying something didn't exist, has done a 180 to not only admit it's real -- but that we should be on their side against "Orange Man Bad". The same side who lied us into endless war on a credit card, spied on us and lied about it, and attempted to subvert the will of the people in at least one election that we know of -- if not many more. They did all this knowing it was divisive and dangerous, knowing it could lead to violence and bloodshed -- but they did it anyway because it's about saving themselves, not the country. 

 

And the media wants us to be on their side... that just makes me shake my head. 

 

The truth is that the "deep state" is a bastardized term (like conspiracy theorist) used to ridicule and belittle/confuse rather than be an accurate catchall term. 

 

However you wish to define the sides or label them, the reality is Trump was a threat to establishment (on both sides of the aisle) because of two central reasons: 

1) His foreign policy agenda/pledge to end regime change wars as US policy -- this endangered bottom lines not just domestically in the MiC but globally. 

and

2) What that document above exposed -- without a friendly in the White House to sweep it all back under the rug, the things in that FISC memo could land most of Obama's DOJ and IC and cabinet in jail for a long, long, time. 

 

The push back to Trump from the establishment and their attack dogs has never been driven by their desire to keep the country safe, but to keep the money flowing and their asses out of the clink. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, GaryPinC said:

That's the point I was trying to make to you.  It's the end effect on a country and its people.  You blew up a nuclear reactor with a weapon, it's an act of war because you inflicted violence and harm on another country.  Doesn't matter the weapon.  Certainly the definition of war will change because of the technology.  Hardship, physical and mental harm will all have to be accounted for.  The weapons are changing but it's the target and harm inflicted that truly define an act of war. ...

your initial post made the claim and of which the main gist was, that treason was only applicable when force was used. my retorts were that force comes in many forms. note that the adverb, 'physical' is not used in descriptive terms for force in the portion of the Constitution you quoted.

 

it seems that with the post above, you are trying to argue both sides of the coin now. that aside, can there be any doubt that in today's ***** up world that there is not a persuasive argument to be made that what the Democrats are alleged to have done could be tantamount to treason? i would say one could be made. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[4merper4mer]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

On the 12th.

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

On the 12th.

and every single muther ***** day after.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]