Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

FFS Trump Jr. and Wikileaks MERGED
#1
https://twitter.com/TheresaPeake4/status...1776326656

https://twitter.com/swissifg/status/930281906284974080

https://twitter.com/search?q=Wikileaks&src=tren
Reply Share
#2
Nothing spells guilty like voluntarily submitting information to an investigation.

He should have used bleach bit and hammers like the innocent do.
The Grumpy Geezer's Signature Surprise.
Stay tuned to this Grump Channel as new programming will be added irregularly.

Reply Share
#3
[Image: 646a1de96d4394206f0ea92e33607ff128862cc4...77d567.jpg]
Reply Share
#4
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status...1681443840

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status...7815235584
Reply Share
#5
Liberals every day since Nov. 8th 2016

[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply Share
#6
Three emails . (Sigh)
.


" I have no rules to tie me down "

Leonard Snart

.
Reply Share
#7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjBscEegQM


The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)

The next morning, about 12 hours later, Trump Jr. responded to WikiLeaks. “Off the record I don’t know who that is, but I’ll ask around,” he wrote on September 21, 2016. “Thanks.”

The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.’s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president’s son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ks/545738/

President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter. The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign.

However they were delivered, Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered career prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate her.

Sessions has made no decision, and in soliciting the assessment of department lawyers, he may be seeking a way out of the bind his boss has put him in by effectively putting the matter in the hands of professionals who were not politically appointed. But if he or his deputy authorizes a new investigation of Clinton, it would shatter norms established after Watergate that are intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals.

The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners. The issue will almost certainly energize what was already shaping up to be a contentious hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, when Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

“You can be disappointed, but don’t be surprised,” said Karen Dunn, a former prosecutor and White House lawyer under President Barack Obama who advised Clinton during her campaign against Trump. “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.”

Democrats still vividly recall Trump on the campaign trail vowing to prosecute Clinton if he won. “It was alarming enough to chant ‘lock her up’ at a campaign rally,” said Brian Fallon, who was Clinton’s campaign spokesman. “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

But conservatives said Clinton should not be immune from scrutiny as a special counsel, Robert Mueller, investigates Russia’s interference in last year’s election and any ties it may have to Trump’s campaign. They argued, for example, that Clinton was the one doing Russia’s bidding in the form of a uranium deal approved when she was secretary of state.

Peter Schweizer, whose bestselling book, Clinton Cash, raised the uranium issue in 2015, said a special counsel would be the best way to address this matter because it would actually remove it from politics. “It offers greater independence from any political pressures and provides the necessary tools to hopefully get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened,” said Schweizer, whose non-profit organization was co-founded by Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/...lysis.html
Reply Share
#8
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/930499401163988992
Reply Share
#9
Every one of those sources prove they are fake news propaganda more and more every day...


Not falling for it.


Desperate corrupt liars and assassin's.
In times of universal Idiocy... Critical thought becomes a revolutionary act! CUI BONO?
Reply Share
#10
(11-14-2017, 02:58 PM)titanic1 Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjBscEegQM


The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)

The next morning, about 12 hours later, Trump Jr. responded to WikiLeaks. “Off the record I don’t know who that is, but I’ll ask around,” he wrote on September 21, 2016. “Thanks.”

The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.’s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president’s son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ks/545738/

President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter. The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign.

However they were delivered, Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered career prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate her.

Sessions has made no decision, and in soliciting the assessment of department lawyers, he may be seeking a way out of the bind his boss has put him in by effectively putting the matter in the hands of professionals who were not politically appointed. But if he or his deputy authorizes a new investigation of Clinton, it would shatter norms established after Watergate that are intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals.

The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners. The issue will almost certainly energize what was already shaping up to be a contentious hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, when Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

“You can be disappointed, but don’t be surprised,” said Karen Dunn, a former prosecutor and White House lawyer under President Barack Obama who advised Clinton during her campaign against Trump. “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.”

Democrats still vividly recall Trump on the campaign trail vowing to prosecute Clinton if he won. “It was alarming enough to chant ‘lock her up’ at a campaign rally,” said Brian Fallon, who was Clinton’s campaign spokesman. “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

But conservatives said Clinton should not be immune from scrutiny as a special counsel, Robert Mueller, investigates Russia’s interference in last year’s election and any ties it may have to Trump’s campaign. They argued, for example, that Clinton was the one doing Russia’s bidding in the form of a uranium deal approved when she was secretary of state.

Peter Schweizer, whose bestselling book, Clinton Cash, raised the uranium issue in 2015, said a special counsel would be the best way to address this matter because it would actually remove it from politics. “It offers greater independence from any political pressures and provides the necessary tools to hopefully get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened,” said Schweizer, whose non-profit organization was co-founded by Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/...lysis.html

merged Heartflowers
Reply Share

Post Thread  Back To Forum
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Please select the number: 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10