Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Dershowitz thinks Mueller's report will be devastating to Trump politically but not criminally. This kind of falls into that.
Because once again-- while Trump won't be proven to have done anything criminal, it will be hard for any rational, sane human being with a brain to believe he wasn't aware of all of it.
Yup. Looks like the NPCs got stung by an "Anonymous Sources" story from the Guardian. It's funny as hell to watch them backtrack.
This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that. So why would any minimally rational, reasonable person possibly assume these anonymous claims are true rather than waiting to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available? As President Obama’s former national security aide and current podcast host Tommy Vietor put it: “If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting,” adding: “seems dubious.” -The Intercep
1) In 2011, Brennan, then the country’s chief counterterrorism adviser, had sworn to Congress that scores of drones strikes abroad had not killed a single noncombatant — at a time when both the president and the CIA were both receiving numerous reports of civilian collateral deaths.
2) In 2014, John Brennan, now as CIA director, lied emphatically that the CIA had not illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate staffers who were then exploring a CIA role in torturing detainees. Or as he told Andrea Mitchell: “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. . . . We wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do.” Brennan’s chronic deceptions drew the ire of a number of liberal senators, some of whom echoed the Washington Post’s call for his immediate resignation. After months of prevarications, but only upon release of the CIA inspector general’s report, Brennan apologized to the senators he had deceived.
3) Brennan, in May 2017, as an ex-CIA director, again almost certainly did not tell the truth to Congress when he testified in answer to Representative Trey Gowdy’s questions that he neither knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier nor had the CIA relied on its contents for any action. Yet both the retired National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, and the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, have conceded that the Steele dossier — along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton-campaign-funded product — most certainly did help shape the Obama’s intelligence communality interagency assessments and actions, often under the urging of Brennan himself. There are also numerous reports that, despite his denials about knowledge of the dossier, Brennan served as a stealthy conduit to ensure that it was disseminated widely, at least in the sense of meeting in August 2016 with Senator Harry Reid to brief the senator about its unverified contents in hopes that he would pressure the FBI to further its investigations, which Reid did in a call two days later to James Comey.
"The [hacking] operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team”
Once again, the Dossier is shown to be true. The fact that the Dossier is mostly true precisely explains why Trump and his minions put so much energy into trashing it.
When all is said and done, the Dossier will be vindicated.
An NBC exclusive today has emails from Trump operatives about working with Assange. All the pieces are coming together on the Trump conspiracy with Russia.
The truth is the truth. Political leaders on both sides with credibility and power should continue to call this embarrassing administration, Trump included, out on their corruption and abuse of power.
Yup. Looks like the NPCs got stung by an "Anonymous Sources" story from the Guardian. It's funny as hell to watch them backtrack.
This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that. So why would any minimally rational, reasonable person possibly assume these anonymous claims are true rather than waiting to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available? As President Obama’s former national security aide and current podcast host Tommy Vietor put it: “If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting,” adding: “seems dubious.” -The Intercep
The NPCs fall for these anonymous stories time after time because they believe the MSM without any thought or question.
You’ve posted of an article that says “any minimally rational, reasonable person” would “wait[] to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available,” yet you form a judgment that the Guardian story is untrue without waiting for the relevant evidence to become available. What does that make you, according to your own article?
I appreciate the irony. As it tastes laughably sweet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.