Jump to content

Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Nineforty said:

Volume I of Mueller Report stuff:  Evidence of collusion (which is not a crime, I know)

 

1. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates (2016 Trump campaign manager/officials) were giving polling info to a Russian national that Gates thought was a "Spy"

 

2. Trump called on Russia to find Clinton's emails and ordered Flynn to find em.

 

3. Papadopoulos tried arranging meetings between Trump and Putin and Trump approved this work.

 

4. Don Jr created a meeting with the sole reason of obtaining Russian dirt on Clinton and Papadopoulos was offered similar stuff from a Russian agent.

 

5. Manafort meets with Konstantin Kilimnik repeatedly (connected to GRU). Kiliminik wanted to bring in person, a peace plan for Ukraine that even Manafort admitted to Mueller's team that it was a backdoor way for Russia to get Crimea.

 

There is so so so much more but I realized it's not worth going through 20 more bullet points.

 

 


What the fvck did I just read?

 

For starters, you do know that what Trump said about Russia and finding Hillary’s emails was a joke, right?

 

You just proved how disingenuous you are.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, njbuff said:


What the fvck did I just read?

 

For starters, you do know that what Trump said about Russia and finding Hillary’s emails was a joke, right?

 

You just proved how disingenuous you are.


You just read Benjamin Wittes wet dream. It’s why I’ve been saying for years now that lawfare is the heart of the resistance. They’re not arbiters of truth, they’re part of the attempt to interfere in the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:


You just read Benjamin Wittes wet dream. It’s why I’ve been saying for years now that lawfare is the heart of the resistance. They’re not arbiters of truth, they’re part of the attempt to interfere in the election. 


They must listen to Richard Madcow.

 

?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, njbuff said:


The whole point of the Mueller investigation was to get Trump. Pure, plain and simple.

 

If there is nothing to indict someone, then where’s the crime?

 

There is no in between, you either committed a crime or you did not commit a crime.

 

Pretty simple.

 

 

...he's an easier question.....the corruption of the FBI on Comey's watch is vast, scurrilous and ripe with political partisanship....should we believe that EVERYTHING was SQUEAKY clean on Bob's watch and the Bureau went to hell after he left solely because of Comey?......seriously?.....the depth and extent of corruption was WELL ingrained with Sleepy Bob at the helm....special (COUGH) prosecutor appointment is the epitome of the "fox watchin' the hen house"......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:


Think this all the way through please. You’re arguing that Mueller knew Trump was guilty of what would amount to treason, and had enough evidence to prove it (despite writing in his report the direct opposite — but leave that for now) — yet did not do so because HE BELIEVES IN THE IMPORT OF A NON BINDING MEMO FROM AN OFFICE THAT NO ONE TAKES SERIOUSLY.  
 

And, as a result, Trump has forever changed the federal judiciary, changed the balance of SCOTUS, passed major legislation...

 

But Mueller just sat on his hands and let it happen because of the OLC? 
 

That’s weapons grade stupidity, is it not?


:lol:

 

my sides. 
 

oh Jesus. You’re beyond lost. 


1) That “Russian national” was an ACTIVE STATE DEPARTMENT SOURCE.  Meaning, he was on our team — not Putin’s. 
 

(strike one) 

 

2) Trump never ordered Flynn to find them, and if you’re hanging your belief on “Russia, if you’re listening” then I suggest your sense of humor meter needs adjusting. 
 

(strike two)

 

3) G-Pop did not “try to arrange” meetings, even if he had, it’s not illegal. 
 

(foul tip)

 

4) Don Jr did NOT orchestrate that meeting. Fusion GPS did. 
 

(Strike three) 

 

5) See one. 


You just proved you’re very good at not thinking for yourself but excellent at being propagandize by proven liars with motive and agendas to do so. 

This is why I asked to be put on his ignore list. He appears to be an incubatory carrier of TDS and I want no part of him. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

......so how long would the depth, extent and wide spread of corruption across ONCE THOUGHT TO BE stalwart agencies (DOJ, FBI, NSA, et al) have gone on if a "purveyor of draining the swamp" did not get voted onto the scene?.....so have we been peddling the "world's greatest democracy" around the globe when our own "damn shorts are SORELY stained" and for HOW LONG?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

......so how long would the depth, extent and wide spread of corruption across ONCE THOUGHT TO BE stalwart agencies (DOJ, FBI, NSA, et al) have gone on if a "purveyor of draining the swamp" did not get voted onto the scene?.....so have we been peddling the "world's greatest democracy" around the globe when our own "damn shorts are SORELY stained" and for HOW LONG?...


It’s been going on all our lives, and would have continued unabated. (imo) 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think you unintentionally miss your own points.  You said you didn't shed a tear for RS, and have gone on to explain why you think its wrong for this sort of thing to happen.  If you're in the center, you should shed a tear for both--not just the people you support.  We should agree on that, and yet you seem comfortable with it where Stone is concerned. 

 

 

 

Len, the point is Stone's treatment was no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics.  The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual.

 

Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids.  Right, no.  Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no.  What I recall seeing was very tame

Edited by Bob in Mich
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Len, the point is Stone's treatment is no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics.  The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual.

 

Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids.  Right, no.  Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no.  What I recall seeing was very tame

You have got to be kidding me Bob!  Let's see if you and your family agree with your opinion the next time a SWAT Team pulls you over as you pull into your driveway for failing to signal at the intersection.  This sort of tactic is not right in your average pot raid, and wasn't right for Roger Stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nineforty said:

 

Let me be blunt.  I want Trump to hang.  But I also understand the argument that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Ever. And I would welcome that debate after Trump.

 

I had no idea John Brennan was a Bills fan. 

 

Was this you thinking about Wide Right?

 

john-brennan-mad.jpg

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You have got to be kidding me Bob!  Let's see if you and your family agree with your opinion the next time a SWAT Team pulls you over as you pull into your driveway for failing to signal at the intersection.  This sort of tactic is not right in your average pot raid, and wasn't right for Roger Stone.

 

The arrest was recorded.  There was no one shot, no dead pets, no one thrown down to the ground, no violence at all.  It was very tame. 

Was it necessary to have that many officers?  No, but that is how it is done all the time.  Not unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's 'Deep State' conspiracy theory just took a big hit

 

That conspiracy theory, which has never had much merit, suffered a near-fatal blow Friday afternoon when the Department of Justice declined to pursue criminal charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/politics/andrew-mccabe-donald-trump-department-of-justice/index.html

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ALF said:

Trump's 'Deep State' conspiracy theory just took a big hit

 

That conspiracy theory, which has never had much merit, suffered a near-fatal blow Friday afternoon when the Department of Justice declined to pursue criminal charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/politics/andrew-mccabe-donald-trump-department-of-justice/index.html

Well this is a head scratcher.  The IG report points out that McCabe lied under oath or at least "lacked candor".  McCabe also dropped his lawsuit against DOJ for wrongful termination late last year.  Was some kind of deal cut? 

 

https://thedcpatriot.com/former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-drops-wrongful-termination-suit-against-doj/

 

Also, it's pretty disingenuous on Cilliza's part to mention Flynn in the article and to ignore the recent Flynn case evolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I use quotes because I am highly skeptical that someone who does not know how to read could be a practicing attorney. On the other hand, with the attorneys I do know, I guess it is possible...

 

Hay! I a gud reeder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:


You just read Benjamin Wittes wet dream. It’s why I’ve been saying for years now that lawfare is the heart of the resistance. They’re not arbiters of truth, they’re part of the attempt to interfere in the election. 


They must listen to Richard Madcow.

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I'd love to know the name of your "law firm" so I could avoid hiring them if necessary. I use quotes because I am highly skeptical that someone who does not know how to read could be a practicing attorney. On the other hand, with the attorneys I do know, I guess it is possible...
 

With due respect, this guy is a numbnut.  The beauty of the dance of internet numbnuts is they can pretend to be someone they are not, or in fact, represent exactly who they are.  I think in this case, he’s managed to do both. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Len, the point is Stone's treatment was no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics.  The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual.

 

Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids.  Right, no.  Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no.  What I recall seeing was very tame

Look at this thread; I'm supposed to feel sorry for ROGER STONE???????????????????

 

There are kids ROTTING in prison for.......

 

We've got a long way to go as a country.

16 minutes ago, njbuff said:

A lot of people I have talked to are pissed off at Barr for letting McCabe skate.

 

Is this Barr’s doing? I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe you guys do.

There will be no arrests. Not one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Len, the point is Stone's treatment was no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics.  The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual.

 

Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids.  Right, no.  Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no.  What I recall seeing was very tame

Is everything about pot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nineforty said:

 

1.  McCabe wasn't even indicted. Stone was indicted and found guilty.  Would you like me to go into detail for what? I'd be glad to.

"Following a weeklong trial last November, a Washington jury found Stone guilty on all seven felony counts he faced: five of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress, and one of witness tampering with both the House Intelligence Committee inquiry and special counsel Robert Mueller's probe." (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542)

 

2. It's ironic/interesting to me that the "crime" McCabe was accused of was lying to cover up being involved in a story that hurt HILLARY, not TRUMP.

 

3.  Stone's sentencing recommendation was for 7-9 years. This was recommended by a different entity, not the prosecutors. The prosecutors agreed.  Judge Jackson has final say and can go above or below those guidelines. In my opinion (I've actually read the Mueller Report and know what Stone stands charged with and is likely hiding, and thus why Trump at all costs needs Stone to not see Jail time), Roger Stone is a traitor to America for his role with Wikileaks and the Trump 2016 campaign. 

 

I could go on and on and on with facts destroying this kind of nonsense...but is it worth it?

 

 

 

I know every case has a different fact pattern. That being said...

Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  

For that, he got to re-testify to Congress.

He got no extra jail time tacked onto his other 8 guilty pleas.

 

Roger Stone is a colossal ass.

He was tried and convicted.

He doesn’t get more jail time for being a guilty colossal ass.

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

I know every case has a different fact pattern. That being said...

Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  

For that, he got to re-testify to Congress.

He got no extra jail time tacked onto his other 8 guilty pleas.

 

Roger Stone is a colossal ass.

He was tried and convicted.

He doesn’t get more jail time for being a guilty colossal ass.

 

Such a normal response. Who TF does that?

 

Stone gets what Stone gets. Prison time. Not life. Not a day. Why is this so difficult?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Look at this thread; I'm supposed to feel sorry for ROGER STONE???????????????????

 

There are kids ROTTING in prison for.......

 

We've got a long way to go as a country.

There will be no arrests. Not one. 

The point was simply that if you feel empathy (and anger) for the kids rotting in prison, it does not preclude you from feeling empathy and anger for a guy similarly targeted for destruction even though you don’t like him. 

 

On the other hand, just remember there are people out there’ stating emphatically “I’m supposed to feel sorry for THE KIDS ROTTING IN PRISON?”.
 

Sometimes those that rage against the machine are really comfortable raging with it.  It’s one of the reasons the machine becomes the machine. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You have got to be kidding me Bob!  Let's see if you and your family agree with your opinion the next time a SWAT Team pulls you over as you pull into your driveway for failing to signal at the intersection.  This sort of tactic is not right in your average pot raid, and wasn't right for Roger Stone.

 

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. 

 

In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options.  Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer?  If I run, might I get away? 

 

The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically.  Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile.  If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly.  The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused.  I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. 

 

In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options.  Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer?  If I run, might I get away? 

 

The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically.  Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile.  If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly.  The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused.  I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

 

It's either all that or it puts on a good show for the media that they tipped off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Crayola64 said:


im doing quite well, thank you.  To actually be able to be qualified to form legal opinions, which all of you like to pretend to do, I suspect you could benefit from a legal education.

 

you may not know this, but you are playing make-pretend at something that takes years of education, training, and practice to do.  It’s why we ask juries to find facts.  It’s why we forbid juries from making legal conclusions.  You are unqualified.  ...

from the guy who argued that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge. lol.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Foxx said:

from the guy who argued that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge. lol.


lol it can be.

 

and circumstantial evidence can be better than forensics or direct evidence.

 

WILD I KNOW!?!?!?

 

They all describes types of evidence, not their credibility or weight.  Smarty pants :)

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Everyone's out to get Donald Trump! Do you ever stop to think how bat....crazy this is?

 

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxx said:

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.


just gonna ignore the lies you posted on this same page?  Nice job spreading misinformation lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

See the source image

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...