Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
Open ur fucking brains
I️
️
Open ur fucking brains
I
Counter-terrorism
300 refugees subjects of FBI terror investigations, U.S. officials say
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/0...-terror-investigations-u-s-officials-say.html
300 refugees subjects of FBI terror investigations, U.S. officials say
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/0...-terror-investigations-u-s-officials-say.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign
While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat–Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed
That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised. Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.
Into this misleading “Russia hacked the election” narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation — or at least an explosive suspicion that they’ve wanted us to perceive as a credible allegation meriting a serious investigation. The suspicion/allegation is: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.
Finally, the third prong, without the support of which the stool would collapse: the impression that the FBI has been feverishly investigating what is said to be the Trump campaign’s collusion in what is said to be the Russian hacking of the election. This reporting is designed to get you saying to yourself: “Why would there be such a zealous investigation by FBI agents — in addition to several other intelligence and law-enforcement agents — unless there really were grave reasons to believe the shocking election-hacking conspiracy narrative?” Thus, details about investigative activity have been leaked to the media. The press and the Democrats then exploit the leaks to spin the “Trump complicity in Russian election-hacking” story. It seems not to matter how objectively ill-conceived the Russian election-hacking claim is, or how woefully insufficient the purported Trump–Russia ties are to support an inference of campaign collusion in the hacking. The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand. A New York Times report perfectly illustrates the three-prong scheme. On January 19, under the alarming headline “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates,” the paper began its report as follows: WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said. The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts. Could what’s going on be more obvious? The Times would have you believe that the Russians “worked to help elect” Trump because the intelligence agencies have said so. With this ballyhooed conclusion as the premise, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” — meaning that there may be crimes involved, as well as activities of a foreign power in the United States — to determine the nature of links between Russian officials (who, remember, helped elect Trump) and Trump associates connected to the Trump campaign. The probe, we’re further told, is “broad” and includes “intercepted communications” — which, to any informed person, strongly suggests that the FBI went to a federal court and laid out probable cause of improprieties, which prompted one or more judges to authorize wiretaps and potentially other forms of electronic surveillance (e.g., e-mail intercepts). Is there an innocent interpretation of all this? Of course there is. After all, the underlying allegation of an election-hacking conspiracy between the Putin regime and the Trump campaign is nonsense, so there must necessarily be an innocent interpretation. And, lo and behold, the Times itself provides it — further down in the story, after all the sensational conspiracy mongering: It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. See? It is entirely possible that the FBI and other investigative agencies are not pursuing, and have never pursued, a Trump-campaign angle on the hacking. It is entirely possible (though I have doubts about this) that there are no FISA national-security wiretaps directed at Trump associates — maybe the “intercepted communications” touted by the Times came from surveillance targeting Russian operatives whom Trump associates, perhaps unwittingly, happened to run into while doing business that had nothing to do with the campaign. I think, based on all the reporting we’ve seen (some of which, as the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes observes, is thinly supported), it is more likely that the feds got FISA surveillance authorization for some associates of Trump (the names of Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page are mentioned). But maybe the probable cause for any such surveillance involved those associates’ own business dealings with Russia — having nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign. But the innocent interpretation, the more likely interpretation, is not what the media and Democrats have wanted us to believe. For months, they have titillated their audience with the election-hacking conspiracy fantasy. When they cover their behinds by mentioning the possibility of innocence, it is in the fine print. But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?”
The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?
ETC.
While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat–Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed
That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised. Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.
Into this misleading “Russia hacked the election” narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation — or at least an explosive suspicion that they’ve wanted us to perceive as a credible allegation meriting a serious investigation. The suspicion/allegation is: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.
Finally, the third prong, without the support of which the stool would collapse: the impression that the FBI has been feverishly investigating what is said to be the Trump campaign’s collusion in what is said to be the Russian hacking of the election. This reporting is designed to get you saying to yourself: “Why would there be such a zealous investigation by FBI agents — in addition to several other intelligence and law-enforcement agents — unless there really were grave reasons to believe the shocking election-hacking conspiracy narrative?” Thus, details about investigative activity have been leaked to the media. The press and the Democrats then exploit the leaks to spin the “Trump complicity in Russian election-hacking” story. It seems not to matter how objectively ill-conceived the Russian election-hacking claim is, or how woefully insufficient the purported Trump–Russia ties are to support an inference of campaign collusion in the hacking. The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand. A New York Times report perfectly illustrates the three-prong scheme. On January 19, under the alarming headline “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates,” the paper began its report as follows: WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said. The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts. Could what’s going on be more obvious? The Times would have you believe that the Russians “worked to help elect” Trump because the intelligence agencies have said so. With this ballyhooed conclusion as the premise, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” — meaning that there may be crimes involved, as well as activities of a foreign power in the United States — to determine the nature of links between Russian officials (who, remember, helped elect Trump) and Trump associates connected to the Trump campaign. The probe, we’re further told, is “broad” and includes “intercepted communications” — which, to any informed person, strongly suggests that the FBI went to a federal court and laid out probable cause of improprieties, which prompted one or more judges to authorize wiretaps and potentially other forms of electronic surveillance (e.g., e-mail intercepts). Is there an innocent interpretation of all this? Of course there is. After all, the underlying allegation of an election-hacking conspiracy between the Putin regime and the Trump campaign is nonsense, so there must necessarily be an innocent interpretation. And, lo and behold, the Times itself provides it — further down in the story, after all the sensational conspiracy mongering: It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. See? It is entirely possible that the FBI and other investigative agencies are not pursuing, and have never pursued, a Trump-campaign angle on the hacking. It is entirely possible (though I have doubts about this) that there are no FISA national-security wiretaps directed at Trump associates — maybe the “intercepted communications” touted by the Times came from surveillance targeting Russian operatives whom Trump associates, perhaps unwittingly, happened to run into while doing business that had nothing to do with the campaign. I think, based on all the reporting we’ve seen (some of which, as the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes observes, is thinly supported), it is more likely that the feds got FISA surveillance authorization for some associates of Trump (the names of Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page are mentioned). But maybe the probable cause for any such surveillance involved those associates’ own business dealings with Russia — having nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign. But the innocent interpretation, the more likely interpretation, is not what the media and Democrats have wanted us to believe. For months, they have titillated their audience with the election-hacking conspiracy fantasy. When they cover their behinds by mentioning the possibility of innocence, it is in the fine print. But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?”
The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?
ETC.
lol... Still confused, aren't you? Here's a news flash. I'm not a Trumpeteer... You lefties never could get the concept that people like me only support people who come out in support of what we already believe. Trump supports me. I don't support him. If he changes his positions to something other than what I believe, I'll dump him so fast his head will spin and move on to the next candidate that promises to support what I believe. My loyalty to him lasts only as long as he is loyal to my positions.
Unlike the left, we are only loyal to ourselves. Politicians are merely a vehicle to get what we believe done. If the vehicle makes a wrong (left) turn, we get out.
Blindly following what people tell you is best for you falls squarely in the realm of the left. They indoctrinate. You follow. We on the right know what we believe and we only allow others the privilege of carrying our water for us as long as they do what we ask and they promise.
Apologies. I mistook you for something else.
Accepted. Thank you.
My apologies for calling you a leftie. That was a low blow.
Edit: feel free to call me "Deplorable", though. I like that one. It makes me happy by reminding me that I will never have to say "Mrs. President Clinton".
My apologies for calling you a leftie. That was a low blow.
Edit: feel free to call me "Deplorable", though. I like that one. It makes me happy by reminding me that I will never have to say "Mrs. President Clinton".
Last edited:
I just went back a few days to retrieve a video link and I'm finding videos I post blocked, removed from youtube, many other graphic links to cartoons are just showing IMG & I'm amazed at how much censorship is popping up all over the web lately. Concerted efforts at censorship of right leaning posts are everywhere lately.
Most of the disclaimers that Hazy Shades was talking about to support the argument that the Left's Russian narrative is breaking down were not in articles when they were initially published. They have been revised and added after the fact due to right leaning editors and reporters from Breitbart, InfoWars, Drudge, etc & other dedicated fans on Twitter seeking retractions or clarifications after the fact due to blatantly false reporting.
Most of the disclaimers that Hazy Shades was talking about to support the argument that the Left's Russian narrative is breaking down were not in articles when they were initially published. They have been revised and added after the fact due to right leaning editors and reporters from Breitbart, InfoWars, Drudge, etc & other dedicated fans on Twitter seeking retractions or clarifications after the fact due to blatantly false reporting.
Last edited:
The most telling thing about this FISA Warrant being issued in October against the Trump campaign is that Clapper is adamant that the FBI did not seek the FISA Warrant Against the Trump Campaign.
If the FBI did not seek this warrant, that would mean the Attorney General or the CIA was responsible. If it was the Attorney General the Obama Administration would be fully aware of this and would have authorized it. Since that is denied by Obama Administration, that only leaves the CIA as being responsible for seeking the warrant.
The CIA however is prevented by mandate law from spying domestically and it is obvious that they have been doing so and were responsible for seeking the FISA Warrant illegally. a FISA Judge would not have granted that warrant under those circumstances. Obama was up to his neck in it plotting a Coup with Brennan & other loyalists. There is no denying illegal government overreach by the CIA.
It is Domestic Espionage & is illegal. It is at the very least Sedition.
If the FBI did not seek this warrant, that would mean the Attorney General or the CIA was responsible. If it was the Attorney General the Obama Administration would be fully aware of this and would have authorized it. Since that is denied by Obama Administration, that only leaves the CIA as being responsible for seeking the warrant.
The CIA however is prevented by mandate law from spying domestically and it is obvious that they have been doing so and were responsible for seeking the FISA Warrant illegally. a FISA Judge would not have granted that warrant under those circumstances. Obama was up to his neck in it plotting a Coup with Brennan & other loyalists. There is no denying illegal government overreach by the CIA.
It is Domestic Espionage & is illegal. It is at the very least Sedition.
Last edited:
Interesting possibility as an afterthought framing of the truth to CYA, however, I think these players were so arrogant they believed they were untouchable and Trump likely is going to suffer a debilitating stroke or lead poisoning since they did not even seek to cover it up adequately.
Are they really that incompetent?
I assume that after deep self analysis CNN has determined that being labeled as Fake News is killing their ratings. Apparently these jackasses after deep thought have decided to rebrand FAKE NEWS as Viral Deception.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/03/05/new-name-for-fake-news-viral-deception.cnn
This is gonna be hysterical. Can't wait to hear Trump yelling CNN is FAKE NEWS & has VD!
They really thought this was a good idea?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/03/05/new-name-for-fake-news-viral-deception.cnn
This is gonna be hysterical. Can't wait to hear Trump yelling CNN is FAKE NEWS & has VD!
They really thought this was a good idea?
Last edited:
I lean a bit left but am pretty much in the middle. Both sides are correct on some things and wrong on some things. And many things that are correct have been pushed too far.
Looking at these violent clashes with ANTIFA in Berkeley & other places where Pro-Trump Rallys were held and getting the sneaking suspicion that this is going to be much more commonplace in future. ANTIFA is worldwide violent Terror organization and conflict is inevitable as they are spreading their snowflake recruiting across America on these protest busses.
We can't just pull a gun & kill them without reprocussions. We also don't want to start the fight, but I'm sure we agree, we'd like to finish it when it happens. They are running around pepper spraying people & beating them with flagpoles on a more frequent basis.
Ordinary citizens need to start thinking about stocking up on 10oz pepper spray bear repellent and acquiring Paintball guns with pepper-balls as a nonlethal self defense alternative to level the playing field a bit since Police are standing by not doing their jobs in many instances.
I was checking online & appalled by prices for this stuff.
Anyone got good, cheap sources or ideas on where to stock up supplies. Has anyone tried filling their own paint-balls?
We can't just pull a gun & kill them without reprocussions. We also don't want to start the fight, but I'm sure we agree, we'd like to finish it when it happens. They are running around pepper spraying people & beating them with flagpoles on a more frequent basis.
Ordinary citizens need to start thinking about stocking up on 10oz pepper spray bear repellent and acquiring Paintball guns with pepper-balls as a nonlethal self defense alternative to level the playing field a bit since Police are standing by not doing their jobs in many instances.
I was checking online & appalled by prices for this stuff.
Anyone got good, cheap sources or ideas on where to stock up supplies. Has anyone tried filling their own paint-balls?
Last edited:
Trump supporters are being attacked all across America by the "Tolerant & Inclusive Left" often while Police Stand nearby watching.Stoopid... call the fucking cops
I
When the Police abdicate their responsibility to the Public Safety by failing to intervene, it becomes the Public's responsibility to take action to defend themselves.
Considering you are the puppet mouth piece useless fucktard that is spouting the antif/commie line that is like the retarded pot being fucking retarded.How's that's low blow?
You stoopid!
I
I would ask how far the commie/Nazi/democrat hand is up your ass, but it is obvious it is far enough all up in you to move your lips and tickle your brain.
Stop being a puppet, there are useful idiots and you are not one.
No that would be a GE 134.
Not even Trump supporters, moderates, and even democrats. Attacking women and children also. The correct response to looney left violence is overwhelming reactionary violence and or lethal options.
I am a pretty live and let live kind of dude until they prove otherwise, then I will go all Conan on them and bath in their blood while listening to the lamentations of their trans confused sjw fluid gendered mentally ill blobs of asexual amorphous proto humanity.
Burn an American flag, here have some lighter fluid to speed you the burn unit. The Tao of Pranchette is strong with me.
But I know what will be said., "Nasty they are expressing their first amendment rights!" and my response is the same "So was I!".
Edited; Never mind. I looked at the pics.
- Status