Mueller Report Brings Into Focus Obama's Attempted Coup Against Trump

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We're now learning, through a Freedom of Information act request, that Nellie Ohr was also feeding anti-Trump info to 3 additional Department of Justice prosecutors: Lisa Holtyn, Ivana Nizich and Joseph Wheatley.

The Deep State's denial that there is no Deep State, and that there was no organized effort to elect Hillary and impeach Trump, is losing credibility the more light is shined on this thing.

I personally want Democrats to continue investigating. I think it will blow up in their faces like the Mueller report.

They want to destroy Trump but instead I believe it will continue to reveal the depth of the Deep State's criminality to the general public who really doesn't pay attention or care to learn what is really going on.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody could make a mint selling tin foil hats around here.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2019 at 8:43 AM, shadowkin said:

 

 

If you're an atheist it's enough to make you a believer in some sort of invisible hand.

 

Demonic forces from Satan?  I mean I don't like trump, but I'd say it was more ignorance than witchcraft that got him his win.

;)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI Admits Using Spies Against Trump Campaign

A report in the New York Times, transparently timed and placed by officials within the intelligence apparatus trying to get out ahead of internal investigations, outlines how the FBI sent counterintelligence spies to engage with Trump campaign officials in 2016.

In a stunning admission The New York Times describes how the FBI enlisted a female agent to work the “operation” in the U.K. during August-September 2016 posing as an aide for U.S. intelligence asset/FBI informant Stefan Halper.

Halper was an FBI operative and  Cambridge professor who set up meetings with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos.  The female agent used a fake name, Azra Turk, and presented herself as an assistant to Stefan Halper; however, she was actually an undercover intelligence operative of the FBI.

...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a bit of a deeper dive... this is *not* light reading:

Big Puzzle Pieces Connecting – The CIA, FBI, and 2016 Political Surveillance is Merging

The admissions within the New York Times story today -outlining how President Obama’s intelligence apparatus ran simultaneous intelligence operations against the Trump campaign- are starting to merge the FBI and CIA operations. CTH anticipated this.

With new information about the “U.K. operation” using Stefan Halper (CIA asset and FBI informant); and the details of the contacts by U.S. intelligence operative Azra Turk; we can overlay the timeline and see a clear picture.

deep-state-plotters-crossfire-hurricane-

...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

FBI Admits Using Spies Against Trump Campaign

A report in the New York Times, transparently timed and placed by officials within the intelligence apparatus trying to get out ahead of internal investigations, outlines how the FBI sent counterintelligence spies to engage with Trump campaign officials in 2016.

In a stunning admission The New York Times describes how the FBI enlisted a female agent to work the “operation” in the U.K. during August-September 2016 posing as an aide for U.S. intelligence asset/FBI informant Stefan Halper.

Halper was an FBI operative and  Cambridge professor who set up meetings with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos.  The female agent used a fake name, Azra Turk, and presented herself as an assistant to Stefan Halper; however, she was actually an undercover intelligence operative of the FBI.

...

Almost like New York Times is reputable news. There are a few true reporters out there - not many I grant you because most focus on clicks now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FlbrkMike said:

Somebody could make a mint selling tin foil hats around here.

Or Dunce Caps......

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a remarkable piece written by Will Chamberlain.

Again, this is some hefty reading.

By all means, disagree with the author if you feel so inclined. 

But attempting to dismiss out of hand his solid logic as merely 'tin foil' will betray one's own shortage of functioning little grey cells.

 

Checkmate.

How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is a remarkable piece written by Will Chamberlain.

Again, this is some hefty reading.

By all means, disagree with the author if you feel so inclined. 

But attempting to dismiss out of hand his solid logic as merely 'tin foil' will betray one's own shortage of functioning little grey cells.

 

Checkmate.

How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller

What so offends me is that these Deep State guys are out there playing rough on the taxpayer payroll.  Who the hell are they to try to undermine an elected President?  The sheer effrontery staggers me.  The whole lot should be fired, never allowed to work in government again. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SERWIN said:

It is also the fault of the Chinese gov't that they back industries in China, unlike the USA. It is hard to compete with that kind of support.

USA govt backs their companies even in foreign countries. China only backs them in their country. So, backing of USA is much more than China. Just recently, Iraq was threatened by Trump to select GE to make a power plant over Germany's Siemens. China does not do such things. Still China outcompetes USA companies. This shows Chinese hardwork

13 hours ago, SERWIN said:

. And don't even try to tell us that China doesn't use slave labor, can't compete with that either. I personally believe we should be cutting China off due to the inhumane things the communist gov't does to their people, it's inhumane the way some people is treated over there.

China uses slave labour of people like Uighur or prisoners in heinous crime. Otherwise, it does not use slave labour. Chinese work hard on their own motivation to better their country.

13 hours ago, SERWIN said:

they use toxic materials, they lie on testing reports just to get rid of substandard items, if they are penalized for these actions they skirt regulations by sending goods through another country trying to pass them off as made there instead of China.

Actually, China sells the quality of goods you are willing to pay for. You want cheap items, they give you lower quality. If you are willing to pay more, they will give higher quality. So, it is your choice of wanting cheap items that make China manufacture cheap goods.

13 hours ago, SERWIN said:

I have worked in companies that had manufacturing over there and they don't seem to have the tech skills to solve problems, the company had to send engineers over to show them how to deal with the simplest of problems. I also believe we could very easily go without a lot of those goods shipped over here, they are just filler for the city dumps

That depends on how experience they are. If the company set up is new, solving problems for new recruits will be a herculean task. Also, expecting working class people to do engineer's job is not reasonable. 

China has managed to develop technology which is quite competitive to USA so rapidly. USA tried to sanction China on semiconductor but found out that Chinese will make things on their own if sanctioned. Also, Chinese manufacture lot of items using their own natural resource which they sell at throw away price. So, USA does need China as USA is unwilling to work as hard as China, not have rare earth minerals of China or simply because USA is unwilling to extract its resources at low cost.

China developed itself till 2000 without much of USA support or USA manufacturing. USA help was never needed. It was USA that needs China now and China obliges by accepting to give loans to USA> Even now, the $3 trillion US dollar reserve with China is a waste and has no utility. Yet, China continues to give loans to USA. If China dumps US dollars, then USA economy will crash. China will hardly feel anydamage as they already cater to large market globally and have good footing for their goods

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

What so offends me is that these Deep State guys are out there playing rough on the taxpayer payroll.  Who the hell are they to try to undermine an elected President?  The sheer effrontery staggers me.  The whole lot should be fired, never allowed to work in government again. 

USA relies on Arab's petrodollar. USA has used this to its advantage to become a giant economy, develop its technology, fund its defence and so on. Now, the Arabs are wanting their pound of flesh for all the oil they have lost giving it to USA for free or cheap service. The deep state does not run on USA tax payer money. It runs on petrodollar deal and is powered by petroleum production. This is the price USA has to pay for being dependent on others' resource

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Who the hell are they to try to undermine an elected President? 

Unlike monarchists, we are supposed to believe in the rule of law here.  In fact, not having a king was supposed to be one of our founding ideas.

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

By all means, disagree with the author if you feel so inclined

I do disagree.  He makes it seem like it was some big mystery what statute was involved.  I think I made a comment a week ago or so that it's a crime to attempt a crime (this is called an "inchoate" -- or incomplete -- crime).  And yes, it's a crime to attempt a crime.  Our legal system is quite developed, thank you.

And no, this story is not over.

Edited by Okie
Spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Okie said:

Unlike monarchists, we are supposed to believe in the rule of law here.  In fact, not having a king was supposed to be one of our founding ideas.

I do disagree.  He makes it seem like it was some big mystery what statute was involved.  I think I made a comment a week ago or so that it's a crime to attempt a crime (this is called an "inchoate" -- or incomplete -- crime).  And yes, it's a crime to attempt a crime.  Our legal system is quite developed, thank you.

And no, this story is not over.

Nope, it’s not, not by a long shot.  The real investigation and indictments are coming.  The rabid partisans that perpetrated this ridiculous exercise took the ride and now will have to pay for the ticket.

Inchoate offenses, more than mere preparation?   Well, it seems the Mueller Investigation failed to prove that up.  

Watching Barr at the hearings this week was like watching a cat play with a mouse.  He is in control and at least 10 steps ahead of his would be inquisitors.  He’s playing chess, the morons questioning him are playing checkers.  Same as it was with Trumps legal team.  They played chess while Mueller’s team played connect four.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

China sells the quality of goods you are willing to pay for. You want cheap items, they give you lower quality. If you are willing to pay more, they will give higher quality. So, it is your choice of wanting cheap items that makes China manufacture cheap goods.

That is a solid point.  Dollar General is doing fine due to the demand for crap.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

That is a solid point.  Dollar General is doing fine due to the demand for crap.  

40% of the sales volume of Dollar General are in what are termed "consumables."  Those are everything from cookies to crackers to potato chips to bottles of soda to cereals.  Consumables tend to have higher margins than foodstuffs such as ears of corn and fresh peas.  The business model of the Dollar stores is to skim those higher-margin product sales from the grocery stores, and leave the lower-margin foodstuffs to the traditional grocery stores.  Unfortunately this skimming removes a potent income stream from the grocery stores and eventually puts them under.  Very little of that consumables stream, if any, will come from China.

The store chain that immensely profits from the China trade is WalMart, which all by itself purchases some $60 billion from China.  If you look carefully at the Country of Origin labels on the products inside WalMart, it all is from China  Even the dog food  (which I refuse to buy due to the issues of adulteration and various poisons added as fillers to up the test results for protein).   WalMart has done more to collapse American manufacturing than any single other entity.  Amazing. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

That is a solid point.  Dollar General is doing fine due to the demand for crap.  

It is also true that the people who shop there cannot afford better.  If you increase the income of the people at the bottom of the economic scale, you increase the demand for better quality goods sold at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TXPower said:

Inchoate offenses, more than mere preparation?   Well, it seems the Mueller Investigation failed to prove that up.  

Preparation would be a "substantial step," which is (from memory) all that the law requires as the element of the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Okie said:

Preparation would be a "substantial step," which is (from memory) all that the law requires as the element of the crime.

Both definitions lead to the same place in the current context.  Nowhere.  As evidenced by Mueller’s findings and already discussed, there was no collusion and thus no treason.  It simply did not happen.  

Even if the investigation had, turned something up, because of the nefarious beginnings of this attempted hit job, the fruit of the poisonous tree would have been a major stumbling block for any successful prosecution.

The whole thing all along was and is Junior Varsity.  Right up to the very present Hail Mary Pass attempt by leftists desperate to keep this poppycock going in hopes that it will influence the next election enough to defeat Trump.  It was never about right, wrong or truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, TXPower said:

As evidenced by Mueller’s findings and already discussed, there was no collusion and thus no treason.  It simply did not happen.  

There is no federal crime called "collusion."  (I am certain you know this already, and you don't need a law degree for it.)  And treason can only occur during wartime.  (I have said this here before, so you should know that, too.)

Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

the fruit of the poisonous tree would have been a major stumbling block for any successful prosecution.

"The fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine refers to an illegal search.  What illegal search was that?  There was none that I am aware of, although I suppose it could be litigated later.

As for it being "poppycock," there are already several convictions, so it wasn't that.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Okie said:

It is also true that the people who shop there cannot afford better.  If you increase the income of the people at the bottom of the economic scale, you increase the demand for better quality goods sold at the top.

Not really.  The targeted "consumables" are nothing more than elective discretionary choices, basically "snack food."  There is nothing inside Dollar General other than milk that could qualify as desirable food.  The other aspect of Dollar General is that it is a store of Low Expectations.  It runs on the principle of minimal staff, paid minimum wage.  Where a local small grocery might employ 19, the Dollar store will employ 4 or 5.  It is basically an all-self-service, low wage emporium.  The customers going in have no expectations of any service, and no expectations of choice.  They go in to buy some potato chips and soda and they select it themselves, pay for it, and go back to the TV couch.  Now you can argue that these are not good-quality customers and thus goodbye to them, but the reality of the grocery business is that it needs all the customers of the market area for turnover volume, and it needs those consumables for the higher margins in order to meet the payroll, including back in the deli counter.  When that gets siphoned off, the grocery store folds. 

This is why you see these big fights with Dollar-type stores in the smaller towns; the selectmen know perfectly well that the prospects for maintaining their grocery store goes downhill fast once the Dollar store shows up.  The same issues have evolved with non-perishables with the WalMart and the rural stores. Once again the WalMart business model is to run a low-wage store, with no after-sales service and a lot of self-pick inside the store itself.  

These types of stores end up wrecking a local town.  Dollar-type stores siphon off some consumer dollars, but provide no fresh food or meats or fish, and when the grocery folds, everyone has to drive 20 miles each way (or more) to the town that has a full-service grocery or supermarket.  It makes living in rural areas much more expensive because of the costs of the commutes out of town.  The larger burden of that falls on the very poor - precisely the Dollar customer.  The business model works for Dollar, but hurts the customers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Okie said:

There is no federal crime called "collusion."  (I am certain you know this already, and you don't need a law degree for it.)  And treason can only occur during wartime.  (I have said this here before, so you should know that, too.)

Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

"The fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine refers to an illegal search.  What illegal search was that?  There was none that I am aware of, although I suppose it could be litigated later.

As for it being "poppycock," there are already several convictions, so it wasn't that.

 

You don’t need to go over collusion and treason with me, you need to inform the leftists, those with whom you appear to agree, that this whole sham had merit.  These words are their terminologies and preferred language.  We’ve been bombarded with it for years now.  I’m fully aware.  Many aren’t.  But thank you, clearing that up has value.  Hopefully, others on the left will read what you have written here and get a clue that collusion does not accurately describe criminality in the context we’re discussing.  A more fitting word would be conspiracy.  Which again, I point out, the Mueller Investigation found NO evidence of.  

Sir, if I have to point out to you that spying is in fact a SEARCH and that said spying when predicated on fictitious information from a BS political opponent funded dossier who’s genesis can be described as troubling at best, is intentionally placed in a FISA warrant affidavit, it very likely makes any resulting criminal behavior exposed in the investigation(had there been any), the fruit of a poisonous tree.   Perhaps law degrees leave much to be desired with regard to their value in instructing reasonable men concerning 4th amendment issues.  It’s not me being obtuse.  It likely will be litigated.  Prosecuted, there, that’s a better word.

Several convictions huh?  You mean process crimes (such as lying to an FBI Agent).  Tax fraud crimes committed by the likes of Paul Manafort.  Or, are you talking about the indictment of nameless, faceless Russian techies who will never see a US Court Room.  For clarifications sake, for any who struggle with the terminologies discussed above, what convictions material to the reason America was told the whole sham was perpetrated, conspiracy or cooperation with a foreign power to influence an election, have resulted against any American but especially members of the Trump Campaign? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Okie said:

As for it being "poppycock," there are already several convictions, so it wasn't that.

Since you seem to be following this rather closely, perhaps you could list the trial convictions (and where those took place) and the ones that plea-bargained.  

One big problem with the way the US Attorney's Office(s) run is their rather cynical choice of venue.  For example, anyone snagged from outside the country is carefully brought into the USA in the Eastern District of Virginia.  The reason the prosecutors do this is because the Eastern District has all these military workers in places like Newport News Shipbuilding (constructing those aircraft carriers and submarines) who are well known for supporting any flimsy govt prosecution ever brought.  Then you have all those govt workers in Alexandria who are reliably going to vote for conviction if sitting on a jury.  Anything to support the Government. 

You see this now playing out with the US Govt prosecution attempts against Julian Assange, he of Wikileaks.  The Govt has already announced he will be brought in and arraigned in the VA Eastern District.  No chance that he would be "imported" via Montreal and Interstate 89 via Montreal, then to Burlington Vt for arraignment, where the jury pool would be decidedly different.  So let's get real:  the prosecutors, the US Attorneys, try to stack the deck.  They are frightened of putting their case before any jury anywhere, which if they had a clean charge they would do without trepidation.  As for Assange, he is a dead man.  He will be convicted, if extradited, and jailed literally forever.   He will die in prison.  He might as well kill himself now.

Edited by Jan van Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The larger burden of that falls on the very poor - precisely the Dollar customer.  The business model works for Dollar, but hurts the customers.  

You missed my point.  If the customers had more money to spend, they could better products.  Which means they need to make more money, which means wages need to go up.  You are only seeing it from one side.  I am arguing precisely that wages need to be forced up (increase minimum wages and probably the need to institute a basic income).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k

I think that, not only should the minimum wage be increased, it should be tied to the locality pay of federal workers, so the minimum wage would be increased for the locality you work in.

https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

it very likely makes any resulting criminal behavior exposed in the investigation(had there been any), the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Actually, no.  Believe it or not, spying by non-police actors (assuming they are not directed by the police) is admissible evidence.  It has to do with the issue of "standing."  (You cannot complain about the violation of a third-parties rights.)  I don't have the case law to show you (and don't have the time to research it right now).  But there are cases that involve burglars (non-government actors) finding evidence of illegal activity, which is then used at trial and it was upheld upon appeal.

 

2 hours ago, TXPower said:

You mean process crimes (such as lying to an FBI Agent).

Are you suggesting that people should lie to the FBI?  Or are you saying that lying to law enforcement should be permissible?  Really?  Why?

I don't think that you are thinking this through.  The lying was likely covering up worse crimes.  What I fear has taken place is espionage.  Which, by the way, is a crime.  This is why Martina Butina was sentenced more harshly.  Part of the harshness of her sentence was tied to the belief that she was acting as a "spotter" for other Russian spies.  I cannot find the article right now.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Since you seem to be following this rather closely, perhaps you could list the trial convictions (and where those took place) and the ones that plea-bargained.  

This is pretty easy to find.  I don't have time right now.  I have work to do.  I will get back to you later.

 

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

choice of venue

You are referring to "forum shopping."  It is a known problem on both side of lawsuits.  I don't have time to go over it right now.  Defendants could object under "forum non conveniens" though, if they felt there was a better place to have the trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forum_non_conveniens

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

You see this now playing out with the US Govt prosecution attempts against Julian Assange, he of Wikileaks.  The Govt has already announced he will be brought in and arraigned in the VA Eastern District.

I am sure this will all be litigated.  Again, I don't have time right now to discuss this.  And, honestly, I don't think he is worth my time, anyway.  He made his bed, now he will sleep in it, as we say in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites