The FOUR Times Indicted Crook Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Blind Freddy in a nursing home in a coma could put 2 and 2 together and see what Russia has done to the USA and their puppet Trump. Fuck me, I can't believe ANY American not being insanely angry about it.

I will never understand this. Not as long as I live.

With all due respect Drew, maybe you (or Blind Freddy) should volunteer to go testify to Mueller. As of right now, it's not clear WHAT Russia is even guilty of...

The Russian ads on Facebook ranged from being pro-Black Lives Matter to pro-NRA to showing Bernie Sanders in a speedo. Ideologically, they are all over the place and certainly not just pro-Trump. At best, it can be argued that Russia was trying to sew dissent/chaos. And even if this is the case, what law has been broken?

As for being "insanely angry", America has been the world leader in not just election interference but in actually overthrowing duly elected governments. So let's cut the shit.

[Andrew]

More on monker and Andrews Mueller team.

I'll happily read when you quote an independent source. I don't read RWNJ sites sorry.

[Boomchild]

I'll happily read when you quote an independent source. I don't read RWNJ sites sorry.

And just what would YOU consider a "independent" source?

[steveo777]

IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN! Anonymous

1) This started either before Trump announced his run for President, or soon thereafter. Someone who knew what happened told him.

2) SOMEONE in the IC, likely military intel, sat Trump down & laid out the entire #UraniumOne bribery scheme.

3) How all across the breadth of the Obama Administration people in high offices took massive bribes to facilitate sale of uranium to Russia

4) It involved so many people, it compromised so many agencies, the people who did it counted on it never being exposed or prosecuted.

5) The lengths to which they corrupted our government offices to enrich themselves by selling out our country virtually ENSURED they'd walk.

6) People knew but nobody could talk, the people involved in the scheme were at the HIGHEST levels of the American government.

7) So patriots in our gov't had their hands tied. There was nothing they could do to stop the sale.

Even after SOME of the dirty facts behind #UraniumOne became known in 2015, it was easily buried, ignored, passed by.

9) Somebody took a chance on Trump. They sat him down, walked him through what happened.

Ponder the impossible task being revealed.

10) Even if he WINS the election, he'd be taking over a gov't that had been corrupted & compromised by the previous administration to a

11) degree that was almost unfathomable.

HOW do you go about restoring the US gov't to what it should be, instead of what it's become?

12) And Trump and his advisors came up with a plan.

A brilliant plan. An intelligence operation based on DECEPTION.

13) It started during the primaries when Trump began taking every opportunity he could to brag about what GOOD FRIENDS he'd be with Putin.

14) Trump literally could not seem to SHUT UP about how awesomely AWESOME his relationship with Putin was gonna be.

15) It became a running joke, a campaign feature, engendering much hand-wringing & concern among Never Trumpers, including me at the time.

16) WHY does Trump keep going out of his way to incessantly BRAG about the sweet, sweet deals he & Putin are gonna do together?

17) But go back and look. During the primaries, during the general election campaign, what happened EVERY TIME Trump did this Putin act?

18) He literally trolled all the people who took dirty Russian $ to compromise our nat'l security into ATTACKING HIM FOR IT.

19) And all HE was doing was TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING HE HADN'T DONE YET and would NEVER really do.

20) Literally every single time Trump talked about his good friend Vladimir, Hillary 'reminded' him Putin is...NOT our ally!

21) Obama condescendingly chided Trump for his friendly talk about Putin. Holder was aghast, Lynch was stunned! etc.

22) They fell right into his trap. He TALKED about doing deals with a guy ALL THESE TRAITORS TOOK BRIBES FROM TO SELL URANIUM TO.

23) He's talking about hypothetical deals with Russia & people who took massive Russian bribes on the U1 deal rushed to ATTACK HIM for it.

24) What possible EXCUSE are they going to have when the truth comes out?

They're not going to have one. He made SURE of that.

25) Everything Trump does is calculated for effect.

So now you know why he showed all that 'Putin-Love' during the campaign.

26) The traitors had no idea what he was really doing & rushed to attack him for merely TALKING about doing deals with Russia.

27) Then Trump won the election. He and Sessions went to work.

Now here's something people overlook or don't understand.

Pay attention

28) All this stuff about #UraniumOne we're now just finding out? Trump & Sessions knew about ALL OF THIS before they were sworn in.

29) Part of the intelligence operation Trump & Co. are running is you never show what you know, you keep your enemy in the dark.

30) Trump & Sessions knew about ALL the details of #UraniumOne BEFORE the election.

Who got how much, from who, all of it.

31) How much uranium was being shipped to Moscow, who facilitated that shipping, they already KNOW all of this.

32) They just haven't TALKED about until now. They PRETEND they are just now becoming aware of some of this stuff.

33) There was NO WAY they were going to come into office in January & tip all these people off "Yeah hey we're going after #UraniumOne!"

34) Trump & Sessions know what happened with #UraniumOne. All the dark, dirty details. START with that premise, replay the last 9 months.

35) You need to start an investigation where somebody deep dives into #UraniumOne BUT you can't let anybody outside KNOW that.

36) So here's where the second part of the intelligence operation begins.

You convince people it's TRUMP & HIS TEAM being investigated.

37) All the traitors who facilitated the #UraniumOne deal were on high alert after the transfer of power. Will they be sniffed out?

38) Well not to worry. Almost IMMEDIATELY the new President & his team end up being embroiled in a very public scandal.

39) Trump asks Comey to back off of Flynn, then fires Comey, who leaks memos to the NYT's & DEMANDS appointment of a Special Counsel.

40) With a President who bragged about doing deals with Russia, an advisor caught on the phone with the Russian ambassador.....

41) ...everybody AGREES: yeah, great idea! Let's appoint a special counsel to investigate RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE in our election! So be it.

42) Jeff Sessions then recuses himself from the Russian investigation. [But remember: HE ALREADY KNOWS EVERYTHING ANYWAY]

43) Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein then appoints Bob Mueller & tasks him with investigation Russian interference in the 2016 election.

44) MUELLER AND ROSENSTEIN both already know that Trump & Sessions BOTH know all the details of #UraniumOne.

Got that?

45) Everybody involved in this ALREADY KNOWS. Everybody was in on this from the start. Trump, Sessions, Mueller & Rosenstein.

47) A lot of scenarios go wrong because they start by assuming Trump was clueless, didn't know any of this, Sessions didn't either or

48) was part of the #UraniumOne coverup. Same with Mueller & Rosenstein, whom many assume to be dirty, trying to HIDE the evidence.

49) An intelligence operation based on deception calls for putting the enemy at EASE because they don't understand what you're REALLY doing.

50) So: what do the #UraniumOne traitors & DNC Media & Democrats THINK has been going on for the last 8 months?

51) Trump has been STAGGERING on the ropes in desperate trouble trying to avoid a KNOCKOUT BLOW as Mueller relentlessly stalks him!

52) The reality? Mueller has been digging even deeper into #UraniumOne & into #FusionGPS & the Trump dossier.

53) He has found Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Do you know what it was?

Shall I tell you?

54) He found a MASSIVE Russian bribery scheme involving 1 of the Presidential candidates in which she compromised US nat'l security.

55) He also found this selfsame candidate illegally funding solicitation of info from Russian gov't sources to smear the OTHER candidate.

56) And to compound THAT offense, this candidate also tried to HIDE her funding of this dossier by using a law firm, which is illegal.

57) The investigation is mostly over. Most of the indictments from the grand jury/juries have been made, sealed.

58) You're all about to witness something that was deemed to be an impossibility.

59) A previous administration that was so corrupt across so many agencies with so many people involved, it made it invincible....

60) is about to be rolled up.

Dozens of people are going to prison. And you know most of the names.

61) Not until the hammer actually falls & all the indictments are unsealed will most people figure out what Trump & his team did.

62) DNC Media never had a chance to compromise/thwart the investigation of #UraniumOne & #FusionGPS because they fell for the COVER STORY.

63) It's literally too late at this point to stop what's coming. That window closed weeks ago.

64) Examples will be made out of these people. When Trump & Sessions are done, NO ONE will ever try this kind of treason again.

[Boomchild]

Since we have been speaking about news organizations, here's a talk where Jordan Peterson talks about televised news and what it has become. Skip to the 26 minute mark to hear what he has to say. I would say he is spot on. It also explains why informed people are no longer looking to the MSM for their news and info..

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

[Boomchild]

IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN! Anonymous


47) A lot of scenarios go wrong because they start by assuming Trump was clueless, didn't know any of this, Sessions didn't either or

48) was part of the #UraniumOne coverup. Same with Mueller & Rosenstein, whom many assume to be dirty, trying to HIDE the evidence.

49) An intelligence operation based on deception calls for putting the enemy at EASE because they don't understand what you're REALLY doing.

52) The reality? Mueller has been digging even deeper into #UraniumOne & into #FusionGPS & the Trump dossier.

Sorry, but I just can't subscribe to the notion that Mueller is part of a Trump\Sessions intelligence operation over Uranium One. I believe that there are indications that when Mueller was director of the FBI he was either involved in the Uranium One scandal or looked the other way. The Uranium One scandal is just a part of the deeper corruption within our government. Corruption that spans decades and involves people from both sides of the isle. I believe that Mueller was put into action to achieve two things. Firstly to neutralize Trump and his agenda and secondly to cover up or destroy evidence of the Uranium One scandal as well as other corrupt operations.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

On a side note the "normalization" of sickos. Some people's thought process is really twisted.

[Boomchild]

I no longer say his name. But the person I am talking about has been labeled a "war hero". Look who has donated to his "Institute".

Donations to Arizona State University Foundation designated for the McCain Institute

We wish to acknowledge and thank the following individuals, foundations and companies for their generous support, either financially or through in-kind services, of the McCain Institute’s mission and work


George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Manangement

The Eranda Rothschild Foundation – Sir Evelyn and Lynn Forester de Rothschild

Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia

https://www.mccaininstitute.org/donors/

[Boomchild]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-texts-clinton-email-aide-huma-abedin-sought-immunity-or-would-take-the-5th/article/2648390

You think she'll roll over F.F.? That can lead to shooting yourself. Five or six times.

I think it depends on what she would be charged with. When your charged with a high crime like sedition, it can effect how you think. Make no mistake, she will be rounded up with the rest.

[Boomchild]

While it has yet to be fully confirmed, the passenger list from the Russian plane crash yesterday seesms to show that an exec from Rosatom was on board. Rosatom is a nuclear energy company the was involved in the Uranium One deal.

[Boomchild]

While it has yet to be fully confirmed, the passenger list from the Russian plane crash yesterday seesms to show that an exec from Rosatom was on board. Rosatom is a nuclear energy company the was involved in the Uranium One deal.

Boomchild, that's like claiming there is someone from G.E. on the plane. It's a huge energy company. I wouldn't read anything into that. At least not yet. Those Antinov jets are comon over there for puddle jump flights.

http://www.rosatom.ru/en/

That is why I said it hasn't been confirmed. However, due to how people involved with the Clintons at many levels seem to meet untimely and unexpected deaths, it's worth keeping an eye on. According to the passenger list there was a person with the name that correlates to an exec at Rosatom.

[Monker]

So what? I asked where W said 9/11 was the fault of Saddam.....not what people believed.

Where did I say "W said 9/11 was the fault of Saddam"? Not what I wrote. Quote me please.

This has nothing to do with blaming Saddam for 9/11. He's just giving the fear mongering line of "what if Saddam gave the 9/11 terrorists WMD?" NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.

9/11 and Saddam was conflated repeatedly. Bush was interviewed about this numerous times. You live in an alternate reality.

More fear mongering of Saddam giving terrorists WMD...NOT THE SAME THING.

Why repeatedly conflate Iraq with 9/11 when the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? No agenda?
MSNBC, your second favorite channel (after Nickelodeon), even did a whole documentary on this.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-the-bush ... e-iraq-war

Not blaming Saddam for 9/11...just equating Saddam with terrorism so he could equate it with 9/11.

Again, where did I write that "W said 9/11 was the fault of Saddam"? Quote me please.

Not blaming Saddam for 9/11...just equating Saddam with terrorism so he could equate it with 9/11.

Again, where did I write that "W said 9/11 was the fault of Saddam"? Quote me please.

Not blaming Saddam for 9/11.

Quote?

NONE of these quotes are saying Saddam had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. They are all just fear mongering statements to justify the Iraq war. That is a COMPLETELY different issue than blaming 9/11 on Saddam. As far as I know, he never did that...but, if he did - I would like to know about it.

Quote?

YOU said, "George W Bush came out of his retirement clearing brush to say that Russia meddled in our election. This means it's as definite as Saddam being behind 9/11."

I replied asking for a W quote where he said Saddam was behind 9/11...because, as far as I know, he never said that.

You replied with a bunch of quotes about "what if Saddam gave WMD to the 9/11 terrorists", which is not even close to the same thing. Not only that, but you quoted other people when I specifically said W.

Nobody forced you to reply to my post. But, you did...and you did it wanting to argue something completely different than what I asked for...a quote from W where he said Saddam was behind 9/11.

Didn't even read these. Dick Cheney and Colin Powel are not W. Neither is Donald Rumsfield, BTW. These statements are irrelevant because W did not say them.

Ah, so Bush's right hand men were free agents going against the administration's wishes?
During Bush's terms, Cheney was depicted as running the show. Now you act as if he was a lowly staffer. What a joke.

No. W was President. What happened under his watch is his responsibility. I never argued "President Chenney" 'or President O'Bannon.') And, *W* never said Saddam was behind 9/11...as far as I know. If you can find a quote where he did, I'd be interested in reading it.

My argument has always been that they (the W administration) knew that the public was blaming Iraq/Saddam for 9/11...and knew it wasn't true. W never said anything to support that idea, as far as I know....but he also never said anything against it...he allowed the public to believe a lie.

Your argument is moronic. The multiple instances of conflating the two together (9/11 and Saddam) prove that there was a deliberate effort to manipulate opinion. Declassified Rumsfeld notes ("Judge whether good enough hit S.H.") also prove it. Various testimony from officials like, Paul O'Neil, also prove it. You are just a poorly informed and very gullible guy pretending to have all the answers. Go back to watching X-Files and hoping someday the flukeworm man crawls up your ass.

[/quote]

That is essentially the same argument, except I used my own words instead of quoting somebody else. All I am saying is W was never so specific that he said Saddam was behind 9/11. He knowingly allowed people to believe it when he knew it wasn't true. And, he never argued against the idea either. At that time, If people wanted to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that suited their agenda just fine.

And, as I said, you can't have a discussion on here without throwing out personal insults. I did not insult you....YOU are the one who CONSTANTLY has to be an immature child and start down this path.

[tj]

Now we can add Susan Rice to the list.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-145790

Obama again

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... ned-video/

McCabe sloppy.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... formation/

Susan Rice covering up Obama's ass.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... ump-video/

So when does this all blow up, or does end like the Clinton Whitewater investigation, a lot of circumstantial evidence, speculation and innuendo, but nothing more than secondary participants going to jail.

[Boomchild]

So when does this all blow up, or does end like the Clinton Whitewater investigation, a lot of circumstantial evidence, speculation and innuendo, but nothing more than secondary participants going to jail.

The one thing to consider is that there may be things going on in the background that have yet to be made public. So just because you can't see action, doesn't mean things aren't happening.

[Boomchild]

Maybe they unveiled the wrong Presidential portrait yesterday....

[Boomchild]

Get to know Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. How do you feel about reducing the age of consent to 12 YEARS OLD? How do you feel about DECRIMINALIZING pedophilia? Notice the similarities between her thoughts and today's SJW.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG- ... 4-3-12.pdf

[The_Noble_Cause]

YOU said, "George W Bush came out of his retirement clearing brush to say that Russia meddled in our election. This means it's as definite as Saddam being behind 9/11."

I replied asking for a W quote where he said Saddam was behind 9/11...because, as far as I know, he never said that.

I never said that Bush said that either. And if I did, quote me. The point is, when Bush publicly makes a case about a perceived foreign threat (Iraq or Russia) it has no credibility because he is a lying war criminal.

You replied with a bunch of quotes about "what if Saddam gave WMD to the 9/11 terrorists", which is not even close to the same thing. Not only that, but you quoted other people when I specifically said W.

You are asking for quotes that I never said existed. Because your reading comprehension skills suck, I somehow owe you something? Fuck off.

Nobody forced you to reply to my post. But, you did...and you did it wanting to argue something completely different than what I asked for...a quote from W where he said Saddam was behind 9/11.

If somebody addresses me, I reply. Unlike you, I don't quit the forum, call people Nazis, or cry to Andy. I have facts on my side and I'm happy to discuss anything.

No. W was President. What happened under his watch is his responsibility. I never argued "President Chenney" 'or President O'Bannon.') And, *W* never said Saddam was behind 9/11...as far as I know. If you can find a quote where he did, I'd be interested in reading it.

I never said that Bush said Saddam was behind 911. And if I did, quote me. You always tout your impressive IT skills. You can't find a simple quote on here? Where is it?

That is essentially the same argument, except I used my own words instead of quoting somebody else. All I am saying is W was never so specific that he said Saddam was behind 9/11. He knowingly allowed people to believe it when he knew it wasn't true. And, he never argued against the idea either. At that time, If people wanted to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that suited their agenda just fine.

If Bush had no intention to influence mass beliefs, why would he constantly equate Iraq and Al-Qaida? This was frequently done in publicized televised speeches and not in private discussions. Also, why were high-ranking administration officials articulating that link repeatedly?

And, as I said, you can't have a discussion on here without throwing out personal insults. I did not insult you....YOU are the one who CONSTANTLY has to be an immature child and start down this path.

You have insulted people on here constantly and I have no respect for you at all. You think everybody here has amnesia. Eat the corn out of my shit, loser.

[Boomchild]

INSPECTOR GENERAL Probes $1.25 Million McCabe Received From Clinton Insiders During FBI’s Hillary Investigation

https://truepundit.com/inspector-genera ... stigation/

Gee, no conflict of interest here, right??

[Monker]

Please, this is so ridiculously simple. I asked a question, you replied to it with quotes that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. Now you are off in Lalaland trying to argue with me about points that I either agree with, or don't give a damn about.

Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. As far as I know. If there is a quote where he does say that, I'd like to read it.

As for the insults, you and others were saying it starts on the other side and you are just replying to it. That's simple bullshit and a lie to excuse your own inability to control yourselves. Nobody here is getting personal with you but you certainly have no problem doing it without provocation.

YOU said, "George W Bush came out of his retirement clearing brush to say that Russia meddled in our election. This means it's as definite as Saddam being behind 9/11."

I replied asking for a W quote where he said Saddam was behind 9/11...because, as far as I know, he never said that.

I never said that Bush said that either. And if I did, quote me. The point is, when Bush publicly makes a case about a perceived foreign threat (Iraq or Russia) it has no credibility because he is a lying war criminal.

You replied with a bunch of quotes about "what if Saddam gave WMD to the 9/11 terrorists", which is not even close to the same thing. Not only that, but you quoted other people when I specifically said W.

You are asking for quotes that I never said existed. Because your reading comprehension skills suck, I somehow owe you something? Fuck off.

Nobody forced you to reply to my post. But, you did...and you did it wanting to argue something completely different than what I asked for...a quote from W where he said Saddam was behind 9/11.

If somebody addresses me, I reply. Unlike you, I don't quit the forum, call people Nazis, or cry to Andy. I have facts on my side and I'm happy to discuss anything.

No. W was President. What happened under his watch is his responsibility. I never argued "President Chenney" 'or President O'Bannon.') And, *W* never said Saddam was behind 9/11...as far as I know. If you can find a quote where he did, I'd be interested in reading it.

I never said that Bush said Saddam was behind 911. And if I did, quote me. You always tout your impressive IT skills. You can't find a simple quote on here? Where is it?

That is essentially the same argument, except I used my own words instead of quoting somebody else. All I am saying is W was never so specific that he said Saddam was behind 9/11. He knowingly allowed people to believe it when he knew it wasn't true. And, he never argued against the idea either. At that time, If people wanted to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that suited their agenda just fine.

If Bush had no intention to influence mass beliefs, why would he constantly equate Iraq and Al-Qaida? This was frequently done in publicized televised speeches and not in private discussions. Also, why were high-ranking administration officials articulating that link repeatedly?

And, as I said, you can't have a discussion on here without throwing out personal insults. I did not insult you....YOU are the one who CONSTANTLY has to be an immature child and start down this path.

You have insulted people on here constantly and I have no respect for you at all. You think everybody here has amnesia. Eat the corn out of my shit, loser.

[Monker]

Now we can add Susan Rice to the list.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ore-145790

Obama again

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... ned-video/

McCabe sloppy.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... formation/

Susan Rice covering up Obama's ass.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... ump-video/

So when does this all blow up, or does end like the Clinton Whitewater investigation, a lot of circumstantial evidence, speculation and innuendo, but nothing more than secondary participants going to jail.

The IG releases his report the first week in March. Then charges ect. Then Clinton and bunch invole lawyers, ect. Although unlike Mueller who is at almost 1 1/2 years and found nothing, plenty has been found here.

So, now you are saying March is when the sky will fall. When the IG report is released and nothing happens but a stalemate debate on what it means, I have to wonder what your next date for the sky falling will be.

Unlike this fiasco, the Mueller investigation is an actual investigation that has already seen indictments, plea deals, etc. And, if Trump made good on his word to testify under oath to Mueller, it would be over soon.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Please, this is so ridiculously simple. I asked a question, you replied to it with quotes that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION.

Your question (where did W say Saddam was behind 9/11?) was asking for something I never even mentioned a.k.a. a non sequitur.
The quotes I posted showed there was an effort by the Bush admin to link Saddam to Al Qaeda/9-11.
Which is 100% true and has been documented ad nauseam by the press.
I don't care that you don't care. You are the forum's resident village idiot.

Now you are off in Lalaland trying to argue with me about points that I either agree with, or don't give a damn about.

Speaking of unanswered questions, you said that Sebastian Gorka is a "wanted criminal by foreign governments."
Third time I am asking you to back this up.
Can you? Or are you just a liar?
Everyone here is still waiting with baited breath for you to provide a source for "Hillary had permission to use a private server."

Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. As far as I know. If there is a quote where he does say that, I'd like to read it.

Never said this. And if I did, quote me.

As for the insults, you and others were saying it starts on the other side and you are just replying to it. That's simple bullshit and a lie to excuse your own inability to control yourselves. Nobody here is getting personal with you but you certainly have no problem doing it without provocation.

Lol. Suddenly the Oxford debating rules apply here?
You just called my friend "chicken little."
So kindly go fuck yourself with Charlie Sheen's toothbrush.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So, now you are saying March is when the sky will fall. When the IG report is released and nothing happens but a stalemate debate on what it means, I have to wonder what your next date for the sky falling will be.

You would say this.
When the State Dept. IG report came out detailing Hillary's abusive email practices, you said:

"What the FBI says is what matters. What the IG says is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture."

Of course, we now know that the FBI's investigation was as fixed as a back alley shell game. Which was totally obvious from the get-go.

Unlike this fiasco, the Mueller investigation is an actual investigation that has already seen indictments, plea deals, etc. And, if Trump made good on his word to testify under oath to Mueller, it would be over soon.

Indictments, plea deals revolving around process crimes that have little to do with Russian collusion (whatever that even means).

[Boomchild]

The IG releases his report the first week in March. Then charges ect. Then Clinton and bunch invole lawyers, ect. Although unlike Mueller who is at almost 1 1/2 years and found nothing, plenty has been found here.

So, now you are saying March is when the sky will fall. When the IG report is released and nothing happens but a stalemate debate on what it means, I have to wonder what your next date for the sky falling will be.

Unlike this fiasco, the Mueller investigation is an actual investigation that has already seen indictments, plea deals, etc. And, if Trump made good on his word to testify under oath to Mueller, it would be over soon.

I don't think it's a good idea to speculate when "the hammer" will fall. This is a very complex situation. The scope is big and broad. I think that there are things surrounding it that the public has no clue about. Creating indictments and prosecution most likely will be a long involved process. There has been heavy activity with sealed indictments since about September of 2017. Since they are sealed, no one at this point can say that they are related to Mueller's investigation or some other investigation or operation. What the release of the memos and the forthcoming IG report does is shed light on the corruption but doesn't exactly indicate prosecution.

[slucero]

all this changes when a special prosecutor is named...


then Trey Gowdy's "retirement" will make much more sense....

[Boomchild]

all this changes when a special prosecutor is named...


then Trey Gowdy's "retirement" will make much more sense....

I would not be surprised if Gowdy is appointed to such a position.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

Now he doesn't want to release it at all.

If I understand correctly, he refuses to do any redact any of the information in it. So in a sense that would be correct.

[Boomchild]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/judge-orders-release-sealed-bill-clinton-documents-from-ken-starr-probe.html

Things not looking so good these days for the Clintons.

[Monker]

Please, this is so ridiculously simple. I asked a question, you replied to it with quotes that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION.

Your question (where did W say Saddam was behind 9/11?) was asking for something I never even mentioned a.k.a. a non sequitur.

It's just a question. Nothing more or less. Just as when I buzzinga'd you, you had a knee jerk reaction and now you have gone all loopy about it. Kinda funny watching you try to justify that original reply.

The quotes I posted showed there was an effort by the Bush admin to link Saddam to Al Qaeda/9-11.
Which is 100% true and has been documented ad nauseam by the press.
I don't care that you don't care. You are the forum's resident village idiot.

If you don't care that I don't care, blah, blah, blah, why do you continue to bring it up?

Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. As far as I know. If there is a quote where he does say that, I'd like to read it.

Never said this. And if I did, quote me.

I never said you said it. I said it, and I said that I said it, and I'll say that I said it again....YOU REPLIED TO IT, and NOTHING you have said in all of these posts, that are essentially in reply to my question,was a quote where W said Saddam was behind 9/11.

As for the insults, you and others were saying it starts on the other side and you are just replying to it. That's simple bullshit and a lie to excuse your own inability to control yourselves. Nobody here is getting personal with you but you certainly have no problem doing it without provocation.

Lol. Suddenly the Oxford debating rules apply here?

No, just following the Boomy, KC, and TNC rules. You all said you RESPOND to being insulted. There have been no insults from me, and yet you insult me in every post.

You just called my friend "chicken little."

No, I didn't 'just' do that. I did that days ago...try to keep up.