THIS is John Ratcliffe. Our new Director of National Intelligence
#1
DANCENANNA 

Heavenly Father, please keep President Donald Trump and his family safe and protected, along with all the Patriots who are working with him and for him.  Protect and Nurture our Nation, and help us through these turbulent times.  We ask this in the Name of Christ.  Amen. 
[-] Liked by:
  • Apache54, BirdLady2, DaJavoo, Hero Protagonist, MeaCulpa, Sami, San Azulito, Skyrison
Like Reply
#2
(05-22-2020, 09:57 PM)Aquarius Wrote:

[Image: 0pGlXo1.gif]
You got any a dem french fried taters in 'ere? I reckon I'll have me some a da big 'uns.
[-] Liked by:
  • Apache54, Aquarius, BirdLady2, DaJavoo, Hero Protagonist, Sami, San Azulito
Like Reply
#3
Is it ME or is Trump slowly weeding out the trash over this first term and when re-elected he will open the barn door and we will see some trash going to the dump/prison?
[-] Liked by:
  • Aquarius, FlyoverCountry, San Azulito
Like Reply
#4
(05-22-2020, 09:57 PM)Aquarius Wrote:


I like Ratcliffe, but that was just for show, driving the point home that there was no crime committed, and it does not show that Mueller is a fraud or that the investigation was a fraud.

The report stated that they could NOT conclude that there was a crime committed, nor does it exonerate.  You can't exonerate someone if there was no crime committed. Without a crime being presented, you can't be declared innocent or guilty of something that isn't criminal.  You can be found innocent or guilty if there was a burglary, a rape, a bank robbery , a murder etc, but not if there is no crime being committed.  They couldn't conclude that a single thing in that report was a crime and it doesn't sound like they left out a single potential crime that somebody could drum up later and say "well how about this thing that Trump did?".
[-] Liked by:
  • Aquarius, Hero Protagonist, Sami
Like Reply
#5
In retrospect, it is very easy to prove Robert Mueller's report is a fraud  (I personally don't hold Mueller responsible, as the Radcliffe clip shows, he is a bumbling old man whose reputation was used on the report to hide the work of the true criminal, Andrew Wieseman, a Clinton henchman). 

First let's look at the Mueller Report.  Mueller begins by explaining the genesis of the problem - 

Quote:Introduction to Volume 1

The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.  Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016.  In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network.   Release of hacked materials- hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government - began that same month.   Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

Two weeks ago, testimony given to House Intelligence Committee was released.  This exchange is from December of 2017:

Quote:[Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?

Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.

Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?

Mr. Henry: There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. …

Mr. Stewart:
But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?

Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.

Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you’ve indicated. …

Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.

Mr. Henry is Shawn Henry.  He was a Senior member of Crowdstrike, which would be the 'cyber response team'  that Robert Mueller's report references.  He took the job in 2012.  From 2001 until 2012, he was the head of the FBI's cyber crime investigation unit, and his boss was Robert Mueller.

So, the Mueller report actually cites 'evidence' of Russian hacking when the truth is a long time associate of his who was part of the cyber response team claims there is no 'evidence' of the hacking.  Clearly Mr. Mueller is part of a fraud in misleading us in this report.


Quote:.....Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically)

This is a claim that a joke Trump made in a debate with Hillary Clinton was an actual request to Russia to hack Clinton's email server.  The idea that Robert Mueller included this is his report as if it is some kind of actual evidence shows that he is a fraud and  his report is partisan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvWg2FBnts
[-] Liked by:
  • Aquarius, Sami
Like Reply
#6
(05-23-2020, 10:37 AM)San Azulito Wrote: In retrospect, it is very easy to prove Robert Mueller's report is a fraud  (I personally don't hold Mueller responsible, as the Radcliffe clip shows, he is a bumbling old man whose reputation was used on the report to hide the work of the true criminal, Andrew Wieseman, a Clinton henchman). 

First let's look at the Mueller Report.  Mueller begins by explaining the genesis of the problem - 

Quote:Introduction to Volume 1

The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.  Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016.  In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network.   Release of hacked materials- hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government - began that same month.   Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

Two weeks ago, testimony given to House Intelligence Committee was released.  This exchange is from December of 2017:

Quote:[Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?

Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.

Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?

Mr. Henry: There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. …

Mr. Stewart:
But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?

Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.

Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you’ve indicated. …

Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.

Mr. Henry is Shawn Henry.  He was a Senior member of Crowdstrike, which would be 'cyber response team'  that Robert Mueller's report references.  He took the job in 2012.  From 2001 until 2012, he was the head of the FBI's cyber crime investigation unit, and his boss was Robert Mueller.

So, the Mueller report actually cites 'evidence' of Russian hacking when the truth is a long time associate of his who was part of the cyber response team claims there is no 'evidence' of the hacking.  Clearly Mr. Mueller is part of a fraud in misleading us in this report.


Quote:.....Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically)

This is a claim that a joke Trump made in a debate with Hillary Clinton was an actual request to Russia to hack Clinton's email server.  The idea that Robert Mueller included this is his report as if it is some kind of actual evidence shows that he is a fraud and  his report is partisan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvWg2FBnts

Great analysis, @San Azulito. I thought it was craziness that was even allowed in the report! I remember the media and dems grabbed it and ran. Idiots.
Thomas Jefferson said: THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS. IT IS ITS NATURAL MANURE.

[-] Liked by:
  • Aquarius, San Azulito
Like Reply
#7
(05-23-2020, 09:07 AM)Apache54 Wrote: Is it ME or is Trump slowly weeding out the trash over this first term and when re-elected he will open the barn door and we will see some trash going to the dump/prison?

I sure hope and pray that will happen.
Heavenly Father, please keep President Donald Trump and his family safe and protected, along with all the Patriots who are working with him and for him.  Protect and Nurture our Nation, and help us through these turbulent times.  We ask this in the Name of Christ.  Amen. 
[-] Liked by:
  • Apache54, San Azulito
Like Reply
#8
(05-23-2020, 11:12 AM)Sami Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 10:37 AM)San Azulito Wrote: In retrospect, it is very easy to prove Robert Mueller's report is a fraud  (I personally don't hold Mueller responsible, as the Radcliffe clip shows, he is a bumbling old man whose reputation was used on the report to hide the work of the true criminal, Andrew Wieseman, a Clinton henchman). 

First let's look at the Mueller Report.  Mueller begins by explaining the genesis of the problem - 

Quote:Introduction to Volume 1

The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.  Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016.  In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network.   Release of hacked materials- hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government - began that same month.   Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

Two weeks ago, testimony given to House Intelligence Committee was released.  This exchange is from December of 2017:

Quote:[Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?

Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.

Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?

Mr. Henry: There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. …

Mr. Stewart:
But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?

Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.

Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you’ve indicated. …

Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.

Mr. Henry is Shawn Henry.  He was a Senior member of Crowdstrike, which would be 'cyber response team'  that Robert Mueller's report references.  He took the job in 2012.  From 2001 until 2012, he was the head of the FBI's cyber crime investigation unit, and his boss was Robert Mueller.

So, the Mueller report actually cites 'evidence' of Russian hacking when the truth is a long time associate of his who was part of the cyber response team claims there is no 'evidence' of the hacking.  Clearly Mr. Mueller is part of a fraud in misleading us in this report.


Quote:.....Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically)

This is a claim that a joke Trump made in a debate with Hillary Clinton was an actual request to Russia to hack Clinton's email server.  The idea that Robert Mueller included this is his report as if it is some kind of actual evidence shows that he is a fraud and  his report is partisan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvWg2FBnts

Great analysis, @San Azulito. I thought it was craziness that was even allowed in the report! I remember the media and dems grabbed it and ran. Idiots.


To call it craziness is way too kind.   It is the intentional distortion of facts in an attempt to paint a fake narrative related to Russian Collusion in order to interfere with President Trump's ability to implement the agenda that he was elected for.    In the broadest sense it is treason and sedition.   In the narrow sense it is an abuse of prosecutor power and a misuse of government resources for political reasons.   

We have to be hopeful that Durham is laying it all out and connecting the dots, but that seems a long shot.
[-] Liked by:
  • Apache54, Aquarius, Hero Protagonist
Like Reply


Forum Jump:

[-]
Alerts
  • 0
  • View All Alerts

    [-]
    Who's Online
    There are currently 81 online users. [Complete List]
    » 21 Member(s) | 54 Guest(s)
    =42, Apache54, Beyond It's The Great Trumpski, bigD111, crunchysuperman, FlyoverCountry, FreeFlow, Hero Protagonist, Hickory, John, Kels, Oldcynic, Pintaday, Rembrandt, Rexel, Sassy, SouthernBelle, Talon, Thinklester, Tolimar, Winter_Steelheader

    [-]
    Landslide Countdown:

    >