Tag Search for "Archive"

newtboy

says...

Yeah…it keeps getting better.
The national archives found out Trump had stolen documents and informed him and his staff that was criminal and had been referred to the DOJ. Eventually they returned over 15 boxes of documents pilfered from the whitehouse illegally, (no telling how many they still have, how many they burned (but some), and how many were shredded and flushed down his golden toilet (definitely some more)) including multiple classified documents that had been stored in totally unsecured locations.

But Biden made cold soup….look out.

newtboy

says...

“People who have nothing to hide, don’t bleach their emails, or destroy evidence to keep it from being publicly archived as required under federal law.”
D J Trump

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaa…….ahh….ahh….aaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!

Absolutely incontrovertible that he absolutely knew with no doubt that stealing these publicly owned documents was undeniably criminal. It was a main talking point of his campaign.
If there’s no prosecution and sentence for this blatant violation of exactly the laws he claimed disqualified Clinton for 1% of what he’s been caught red handed with, expect absolutely zero record of Biden’s administration, nothing. If burning any and all records you want hidden isn’t violating clear law, isn’t worth prosecution, anything goes.
Waiting to hear from Republicans….will they want prosecution, or will they do Olympic level mental gymnastics to pretend burning unscanned, uncopied original official documents and stealing others including classified documents then storing them in an unsecured closet is fine, but having a digital copy is treason. Forewarning, “he was the president and could do whatever he wanted” 1) isn’t true in America, all Americans know that and 2) let’s Biden do whatever he wants, fuck your feelings.

newtboy

says...

Holy fuck!
Remember Hillary?
Remember how she should be locked up for using a private server for digital copies of official government documents?

Uh oh….Trump not only also did exactly that, but he actually stole original (uncopied, with no digital copy) documents from the whitehouse, including but not limited to presidential records, personal notes, correspondence with foreign leaders, government records…. The national archive had to raid Maralago to retrieve what was left unincinerated (yes, he burned records that he stole from the whitehouse).
He allegedly actually ate some records in the Oval Office so they couldn’t be retrieved and put back together like so many were.
Another instance of Trump being ridiculously guilty of far more of the exact criminal activity that he asserted his opponent might commit and should definitely be executed for.

P.S. How about those jobs numbers!? Not the 300000 jobs lost Fox and co have been gleefully telegraphing for weeks, but nearly 500000 gained, and more people reentering the workforce thanks to a healthy economy! Thanks Biden!

On a personal note, Biden debt relief programs just erased $59k of student debt my mother in law has been paying off for nearly 50 years (she became severely ill and was out of work for years….twice, and all progress she had made paying it off was erased with penalties and interest). Thanks again Biden!

JiggaJonson

says...

HEEEEEEEEEEEEY---------
When am i gonna see that extra $4k dollars a year from the 2017 tax bill trump signed---a lot of people forgot about that, but just now we're hitting the stride where we have to start paying for the tax cuts he gave himself and anyone else making $500k+ a year

I'm supposed to get an extra $4k back in my taxes from that, that's why I have to pay more in taxes now that they're sun-setting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200306224327/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/11/trump-says-corporate-tax-cuts-will-mean-4000-extra-i
n-your-pocket-economists-arent-so-sure/

Remember? Where's my $4k trumppy? where's my extra $4k EVERY YEAR!?!?
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Oh but it saved jobs or something right? Is there an emoji for jacking-off an eggplant?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/10/at-and-t-layoffs-jobs-slashed-trump-tax-cuts
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/tax-law-offshore-jobs/

@bobknight33

bobknight33

said:

Not a good year for Joe.

Not a good year for the American pocketbook.

grahamchapman_

says...

Hello! I currently run the Instagram account @/grahamchapman_ where I find archive footage and photos, keeping up Graham's legacy. I was wondering if you may have saved this before it got deleted from YouTube? I am desperate for new material. Thank you!

Mordhaus

says...

The ACA was passed on party lines, it was going to be screwed up because of that no matter what. What pisses me off about it is that instead of trying to come up with a better solution, the Democrats rammed that fucker through. I can only assume it is because for a brief period they had control of the legislative and executive branches all at the same time. So rather than take a chance to fix it, they figured if they were going to get anything they might as well get it in place.

Obama inherited the situation in the ME. Bush fucked up royally. Obama just took a bad situation and made it worse. Admittedly, there were other fingers in the pie also, but he is still culpable.

The rules for the drone war were decided by Obama's administration. Regardless of what Bush did before, that lays 100% on Obama and his team. Some good articles to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html

https://www.propublica.org/series/drones

newtboy

said:

Remember, the ACA was barely passed and had to be watered down so red state democrats would vote for it, then the states had the option to opt in or out of federal assistance. Those that opted out all had terrible experiences with higher insurance costs, states that opted in had relatively stable costs and millions insured, lowering medical costs across the board (because they didn't have to eat 30% of bills and pass the cost to the rest of their patients). Should have been universal single payer. (Side note, my insurance went up 5-10% before Trump, and more than doubled under Trump. I've had the same policy since 08.)

Funny, the people I recall claiming Daesh was a nothing burger were all Republicans, Democrats were pushing to take them on immediately when they emerged in northern Iraq. You do remember who took us into Iraq with no plan to leave, right? Not Obama.
Wasn't it Bush who decided the rules for war in Iraq, like everyone's a combatant? Obama failed to fix them and that's why he lost my second vote, not doing enough...granted he had a pure obstructionist Senate so was stimied, but I expected more.

I feel like people's political memories only go back through Obama now, and that's just dumb. Our history is much longer, our memories should be too.

newtboy

says...

Aaaaaaahahaha! Good one Bob. The pot calling the glass vase black, I think.

It's a multi state fire, NPR is an appropriate source that actually investigates and had published an article on the exact topic with interviews and quotes from local officials. You made baseless claims about Oregon in your question about California, so local news sources wouldn't be a good source, and they also don't indicate any local forest fires are arson.

Archived from when and where? You know I'm not using your links, you have linked to virus hosts more than once. As a likely Russian operative, no one should trust any link you post. I certainly won't. Bobski #3,5,6,7,12,14,17, and 21 have been told this, you guys need to talk to each other.

We're talking about fires that started in the last month, not over decades. You don't need archived articles for that, so I'll assume these are years or decades of news story/records, the only date listed is 2014 in Ferguson, so massive propaganda FAIL Bob.

🤦‍♂️

bobknight33

said:

NPR is blinded to reality.

While yo look to NPR what about local news? How many arsonist are mentioned?

Archived news articles:

WARNING- PRE VIRUS SCAN ANY LINK BOB POSTS BEFORE CLICKING

bobknight33

says...

newtboy

said:

So I'll tell you again, no, and it's not arsonists in Oregon either, antifa or not, maybe a few, but not a statistically significant number. It's lighting and wind and accidents in California and Oregon and Washington. A massive lightning storm hit the west in mid August sparking fires everywhere, and unprecedented dryness and high temperatures has kept those and other fires alive since.
The newest right wing claim is that climate change has nothing to do with the fires, they're all antifa arson. Of course I assumed that's what you were referencing when you erroneously claimed many of the Oregon fires were arson.

Read it this time, the answers are there...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires

eoe says...

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

newtboy

said:

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

moonsammy

says...

And you know what? I'd love to hear your excuse for this one. Is it now ok for a president to direct government funds to be spent in a manner that directly benefits him, when it's more expensive and less reasonable than other options? Do you support open grifting? Is it only ok for this president?

bobknight33

said:

That was ordered Obama Admin and deliver under Trumps.

Go blame someone else.

*lies

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,
Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA.

Do you apply that with equal opportunity?

The guilt of association for the gallery with Stevens and whatever his name was from Amerika.org, should be similar to association with say the Nation of Islam and Farakhan?

What about Canada’s branch of BLM in Toronto who blocked the Toronto Pride parade and one of whose founders(Yusra Khogali) have said things like “white people are recessive genetic defects, this is factual”

https://archive.is/7R2LV/c2fbdb212391ecd395c3c89372819e2bd8d772bc.png

And

“ Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz”

Thats as much ‘evidence’ as you’ve given for convicting Brett Stevens of white supremacy, and then to convict anyone associated with him there after.

I say we dont get so extreme as you and deny all those people and anyone associated a right to speak their piece on that basis alone. I say the stupid and wrong things being said need to be allowed to be spoken, and confront them with corrections and revelation rather than force and violence to quiet them.

JiggaJonson

says...

Hey welfare queen,

you may like this https://web.archive.org/web/20190404212541/https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1xNQdypvyHcJ:https://medium.com/%40shewrites94/bring-
on-the-light-bf4e8c859058+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(copy paste the whole link)

"I am not being paid to write my political opinions nor am I being hired by someone to do it. I am writing about this subject for the same reason I got into politics; I care for my local community and my global community."

" I love Russia with all my heart.... To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love."

I see you took your socialist handout. You are obviously a very principled person.

WmGn

says...

This seems to have been the incident: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/02/archives/soviet-discloses-nuclear-blast-that-put-out-fire-in-gas-field.html

Details: (i) burning for three years; (ii) bomb in the kiloton range

JiggaJonson

says...

You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------

The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

bobknight33

said:

If this was OBAMA you all will being a doing a circle jerk of pleasure that Obama is standing up for America and making others finally pay up.'

Bunch of hypocrites.

JiggaJonson

says...

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

+++++(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

+++++(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

+++++(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date 5/17/17 General Rod J. Rosenstein

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/sco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related:
S.582 - Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/582

GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD

++ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
WORKED UNDER JEFF SESSIONS AND WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD JOHN TRUMP

++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL

++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL

+++JEFF SESSIONS
LITERALLY THE FIRST SENATOR TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT TRUMP'S ELECTION PRIMARY BID

HE IS ALSO A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND THE ONE WHO PUT ROSENSTEIN IN CHARGE

========================================================

ROBERT MULLER
+LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/30/fbi-nominee-lauded-for-tenacity/e2012e09-379e-479f-8bd3-8c2aef36152a/

"Mueller, 56, is a registered Republican, yet a striking number of people describe him as apolitical." - July 30, 2001

========================================================

ROBERT MULLER IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION

HE FINDS (AMONG MANY OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE)

JANUARY 2016
+++++++++++++
Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization - “intended to facilitate further discussions” in order to “attempt to enter into a mutually acceptable agreement” related to the Trump-branded project in Moscow.

MARCH 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trumpand that these connections could help arrange that meeting.

PAPADOPOLOUS CONTINUES CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS AND MAKES TRIPS TO RUSSIA WHICH BEGINS TO RAISE FLAGS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN

Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”

APRIL 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign—specifically,the then-Greek foreign minister—about Russia’s obtaining Clinton-related emails.

Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

========================================================

THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

THE ENTIRE REPORT IS PEPPERED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)

========================================================

DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT?

========================================================
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)

========================================================

STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES

THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP

THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS STARTED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN POWER IN 2017 TURNED UP A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND LANDED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL ALL WHILE ACTING AS HUMAN SHIELDS FOR DONALD TRUMP

SEE FOR YOURSELF
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FOR EVIDENCE OF SPECIFICALLY WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY WERE BROKEN AND BY WHOM, LOOK AT THE

APPLICATION SECTION

PAGE 181 (note page 189-190 are all redacted bc ongoing matter)

OF THE MULLER REPORT, COMPLETE WITH EXTENSIVE CITATIONS.

bobknight33

said:

It only took 3 years for Dems to find a reason for impeachment articles . The thinnest of reasons with no proof. Only a difference of ideology feeds their blood thrust to remove this man.

No running, no Putin link no nothing just a big waste of Americans time.

I, personally love it. Trump has won the battle. Democrats across the land are fed up and will switch party or just sit out the 2020 election.

All for what? This now goes to the Senate. For what? Republican control and this will no pass/ convict. Just a wast of Americans time.

VideoSift

/Learn

5.0

search results matching tag: `Archive`

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Biden’s first year as President: A Beatles remix

Graham Chapman on the Merv Griffin Show

Notre Dame Faculty Pens Open Letter To Delay Hearings

Smoke From Forest Fire in Oregon Reduces Visibility

Smoke From Forest Fire in Oregon Reduces Visibility

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

The Looters

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Schaliegas: USSR Nuclear Gas Well Blowout

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Send this Article to a Friend

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

search results matching tag: Archive

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Member Login

Sign Up

Account Recovery

search results matching tag: `Archive`