What's new

The Great Awakening

Is the Great Awakening happening?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • No

    Votes: 21 51.2%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Total voters
    41
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
armedoldhippy said:
"not guilty" , lol. "double standard", lol. those ignorant fucks can't win using their own appointed judges & pet prosecuting attorneys...:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Uh huh...

NYYbluTAAtw9.jpeg
 
M

member 505892

Hempy.... playing with a full deck.... uhhhh?

My investigation team has managed to unearth Mr. McNoodle latest brainscan. Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him.

1654050898145.png
 
H

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
I knew there was a reason Gen. Flynn chose Perkins, Coie to "represent" him...

And, these^ must be the '702s' that Q was always talking about...
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Active member
Cannavore said:
a fascist propaganda campaign to radicalize everyday americans to support things like military takeovers of their own country
Click to expand...
You must have missed the trailer that explains things if that's all you come away with after 5 years.

How's that Mueller Russian Hoax going? And who IS trying to take over our country? I assume you are a US citizen. Q says, Infiltration not Invasion.

How many ranking Dems are sitting alongside Chinese spies?
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Active member
Some are so easily distracted by shiny objects. And it seems to come with Kamala Kackling too.

Durham lost his first case in his career in the heart of the DC swamp. Great place to prove guilt and introduce evidence to be used in future indictments. Next trial highlights the IC communities involvement. It's in Virginia, the heart of the IC community. See pattern? Durham is going after the top and she got implicated directly along with the DNC.

And Mueller is over but the reason for Mueller are just being exposed. That in itself is a crime of the Media.

Who owns the media?

Coverage Failures Cannot Be Explained Away

The original version of the Slate article read: “In September, the scientists tried to get the public to pay attention to their data. One of them posted a link to the logs in a Reddit thread. Soon, the New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers began chasing the story. (They are still pursuing it.) Lichtblau met with a Washington representative of Alfa Bank on Sept. 21, and the bank denied having any connection to Trump. (Lichtblau told me that Times policy prevents him from commenting on his reporting)” (emphasis added).

Later that day, Slate updated the article, changing the “Soon” to “Around the same time,” and adding a note that “the article has been updated to make clear that the New York Times reporters learned of the logs independently, not from the Reddit thread.”

This correction indicates that the Times reporters took umbrage at the suggestion they had chased a story based on a Reddit thread and sought a clarification from Slate. But the emails uncovered during the Sussmann investigation reveal a scenario that seems even more hack-ish: The Times reporters didn’t even uncover the Reddit thread through their own investigation, but had the data handed to them by the Clinton campaign-funded opposition research firm of Fusion GPS while being told it emanated from Reddit.

While the legacy media might slough off these emails as revealing nothing but them working friendly sources, the corporate media’s failure to cover the special counsel’s prosecution of the Clinton campaign’s former attorney cannot be explained away. Rather, it provides proof that when reporters abandoned the last vestiges of journalistic integrity to crush Trump, they instead destroyed themselves. Watch for further proof of this when the corrupt media provides more coverage of the not-guilty verdict than the entire two-week trial that proceeded it.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/31/jury-acquits-clinton-campaign-attorney-but-prosecutors-prove-corporate-media-guilty/
 
Last edited:
buzzmobile

buzzmobile

Well-known member
Veteran
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...r-with-me-here-john-durham-doesnt-have-goods/

What if — and bear with me here — John Durham doesn’t have the goods?​

Image without a caption

Analysis by Philip Bump
National correspondent
May 31, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Special counsel John Durham, the prosecutor appointed to investigate potential government wrongdoing in the early days of the Trump-Russia probe, arrives at federal courthouse in Washington on May 16. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)





The last time anyone saw them, the goal posts were about three miles due west of Ottumwa, Iowa, having been dragged there, foot by painful foot, from their original position just outside of William P. Barr’s Justice Department.

Since Donald Trump first sought to undermine the investigation into whether any members of his 2016 campaign had knowledge of or worked with Russia’s effort to aid his candidacy, the goal posts have been in motion. Over and over, he and his allies presented some alternate explanation for the investigation that shifted all of the questions about legality and ethics onto his real and perceived opponents. Maybe what the media should really be looking at was unmasking Michael Flynn or the Peter Strzok text messages or the Carter Page warrant or the dossier from Christopher Steele or the machinations of Hillary Clinton’s competing campaign. I’ve probably forgotten a few.
In each of those endlessly elevated cases, the strategy was the same: take something either legitimately iffy or easy to perceive as iffy and reassemble the Russia probe on top of it. That the “real” triggers for the Russia investigation changed so much is pretty robust evidence that they were not the real triggers at all. An investigation centered on the obvious ties between Trump’s team and Russia — his campaign manager’s ties to Russian officials, an adviser who was already on the FBI’s radar taking a July 2016 trip to Moscow, another adviser getting an apparent heads-up on Russian hacking, his son’s interaction with a Kremlin-linked lawyer — was repeatedly cast as being about something else, something invariably harder to pin down.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
Nowhere was more institutional energy invested than in the formal investigation into the Russia investigation authorized by Barr more than three years ago. U.S. Attorney John Durham, later elevated to special counsel, was given a mandate to figure out where the Russia investigation came from and, as needed, to upend the conventional wisdom about its origins. And no one would argue that he’s shirked from that task, as he has regularly provided conservative media with new places to locate their shuffling goal posts. When the Justice Department inspector general released a lengthy report determining that the original Russia investigation was predicated on the available evidence, Barr and Durham quickly released a “not so fast”-style statement suggesting that the other shoe was yet to drop.


It was supposed to drop Tuesday morning. For months, Durham’s seemingly been building toward an argument that Clinton’s campaign bears central responsibility for the emergence of the Russia investigation. After indicting an attorney who worked for a firm hired by Clinton on charges that he lied to the FBI, Durham released little tidbits about what he and his team had learned, tidbits that could be interpreted to suggest that he was building a case not against the Russia probe but instead against Clinton.
You may recall, for example, when Durham earlier submitted a court filing implying that the attorney, Michael Sussmann, and his firm had approached federal investigators with electronic data that seemed as though it may have come from the Trump White House. This became the peg for various “Clinton spied on Trump’s presidency!!” takes, including from Trump. But it was not true: Sussmann had data about the apparent presence of unusual Russian cellphones near the White House but only while Barack Obama was president. If anything, it was exonerating, suggesting that Sussmann and the researcher with whom he was in contact were focused more on Russia’s activities than Trump’s. At another point, a Durham filing was interpreted to suggest that the data was somehow counterfeit. That also quickly evaporated.
What Durham’s team hoped to prove was that Sussmann had misled the FBI about working for Clinton as he sought to get them to investigate an unexplained connection between Trump’s private business and a Russian bank. Instead of providing the first significant reinforcement of the conspiracy theory that the Russia probe was downstream of Clinton’s efforts, though, a jury found that Durham didn’t prove his case.

Even if he had, though, it’s clear that this particular theory was not the spur for the Russia probe. By September 2016, when Sussmann met with the FBI, the bureau was already investigating individuals associated with Trump’s campaign and was already aware of Russia’s efforts to influence the election. This idea that Clinton was the trigger for all of it was clearly appealing; Trump’s administration had floated it about a month before the 2020 contest. When Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook testified during Sussmann’s trial that Clinton had approved the leak of the (dubious and quickly debunked!) claim about a Trump-bank connection, Trump’s allies again tried to reverse-engineer this into proof of Clinton’s overall culpability despite the obvious timeline problems. “The Russia probe was Clinton’s fault” appeals more than “there were real questions about Trump’s team and Russia.”


This is the point. It seems clear based on Barr’s public comments that he’s skeptical of how the Russia probe began, which is certainly his right. It also seems clear that Durham was tasked with proving that skepticism correct. That effort is not going well. For those orbiting Trump, it doesn’t matter. The investigation itself and any little part of it is enough to simply say that the point was proved, because (like the “stolen election” assertions) the belief is what’s concrete and the evidence for that belief what’s malleable and evolving.
Durham’s probe has become everything that Trump and his allies accused special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation of being: a fishing expedition that’s gone on for an extended period of time without actually surfacing anything that significantly aids the central case. Mueller could point to dozens of indictments and a voluminous exploration of how Russia tried to swing the 2016 election two years into his assignment. Three years into Durham’s, he failed to obtain a conviction on his central line of attack.
To objective observers, there was always reason to be skeptical that Durham would be able to fulfill his mandate of proving that the Russia probe was dubious and, by unstated extension, that Trump was right all along. It seems far more unlikely now.
Here’s hoping the goalpost-movers have stayed in shape.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top