Jump to content

BeAChooser

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    40,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Conservative

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    who knows?

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

15,061 profile views
  1. LOL! Eventually Redwood's posts are going to consist only of capitalized words. Like a virus.
  2. Not if the passenger manifest of the plane is accurate. It showed Clinton 6 trips with multiple legs totally 26 flights. None of them went to the island but almost all had Epstein's procurers and unidentified females on them. One trip does has a named woman who does appear to have been involved in massage (prostitution) for Epstein. That flight also had no secret service presence listed on it. In fact several trips listed no secret service presence, contrary to what Clinton claimed. Also, who is to say sex with a minor couldn't have occurred on the plane. Some of the victims testified that happened. Also, how do we know the logs are accurate? It would be a simple thing to hide trips or fake the manifests, wouldn't it?
  3. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/07/15/lawsuit-claims-julian-assange-confirmed-dnc-emails-received-from-seth-rich-not-a-russian-hack/ If you overlay the timing, it would appear the FBI took a keen interest in Assange after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link). To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report (needed for Obama – December 29th, ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story. The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview. Right there is the FBI motive to shut Assange down when the Mueller report was released. The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike. Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse. Lastly, if we are to believe everything that is factually visible; including the admissions by the FBI and DOJ itself; and it is proven that Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails and there was no hack; well,… what does that say about Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, who would have had to know they were pushing abject lies in their dubious Russian indictments. The ramifications of this court filing are huge. Especially when you remember there’s no statute of limitations on murder. And murder can put you in jail for life. Or worse. So snowflakes … you may be about to witness Act 2 of the Big Ugly.
  4. The Tech Giants are doing more than just censoring conservatives. Here's an example ... http://thedailychrenk.com/2019/07/10/epstein-clinton-tale-two-searches/ Just saying ...
  5. https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/15/george-stephanopoulos-epstein-dinner/ George, are you trying to suggest that such a *well informed* person as yourself didn’t know that Epstein had just finished a brief year in jail for soliciting an underage victim? That he was a registered sex offender? Are we to believe, that you weren’t aware that scores and scores of other women had leveled credible charges of rape (statutory and otherwise) against him? That’s hard to believe, George. Sounds like spin … or a convenient lie … as big a lie as Bill Clinton told when he claimed he “knew nothing” of Epstein’s alleged crimes. Gee, George, was it also a mistake to continue to work for the Clintons after so many instances (gate after gate after gate) of illegal activity by them surfaced? Is it a mistake to continuing to toadie up to them when Clinton was known to be a good buddy of Epstein’s (good enough that Epstein could meet him at a Deli on a moments notice) during the period Epstein was reportedly assaulting underage girls in his New York mansion? Was it a mistake to continue working for the Clintons after allegations of RAPE came out against Bill that investigators familiar with the case said were credible? You admitted you were present when Hillary said this: “We have to destroy her story” regarding one of his accusers. You were Bill Clinton’s devoted aid and the public face of his campaign. In light of the “MeToo” movement you and other media pukes have championed recently, do you think that was a mistake … to smear Bill’s accusers (who it turned out may have had legitimate complaints) rather than believe them? Was it a mistake to attack the Star tabloid’s revelations about Gennifer Flowers’ relationship with Clinton? You told the press “I’m not going to comment on tabloid trash”, even though that trash turned out to be true. Instead, you portrayed her as a “liar”, until Flowers produced tapes of her conversation with Clinton. But then you didn't abandon him. Did you ever apologize to the Star and Flowers and say that you made a “mistake”? Or did you think that unnecessary in that instance? During Filegate, you claimed that long dead Vince Foster hired Craig Livingstone. That was convenient because dead people can’t contradict anything. But Craig Livingstone denied under oath ever knowing Foster. Did you challenge him on that? Curious that at one time, you had publically claimed that Livingstone was the go to guy if you wanted to get something done and you acted like you knew him really well and had lots to say about him. You said Livingstone knew how to work the bureaucracy to get things done. But after Filegate exploded, your memory suddenly seem to fail (like so many others). Suddenly you claimed you didn't know Livingstone all that well and had only seen him around … sort of what you’re now doing where Epstein is concerned. And when Judicial Watch deposed you, you were a very hostile witness, ridiculing the proceedings and basically refusing to answer any questions by claiming "journalistic privilege". Was that a “mistake”, too, George? On the night that TWA 800 went down, Sandy Berger (Clinton’s Deputy National Security Advisor) was in the family quarters at the White House with the Clintons. Apparently so were you, George. Years later you referred to the bombing of Flight 800 on the air and described being inside the “other situation room” in the White House at the time of the Flight 800 disaster. Curious how you were allowed to remain, but Clinton’s senior military aide, Colonel Buzz Patterson, was ordered to leave (especially since he’s the guy who carried the nuclear football). Tell us, George what really happened that night? Was that a mistake too, since we know know there appears to have been a coverup regarding the events of that night. In your book, “All Too Human”, you quoted Bill Clinton saying “I believe in KILLING people who try to hurt you.” What didn’t you tell us about the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster? Why didn’t you pursue the truth in the murder of Seth Rich, rather than aid the coverup, given what you knew the Clintons attitude to be … given that you must have known all the lies they told when the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster were investigated? Was it a mistake not to, George, or is your use of the excuse "mistake" situational? George got away with failing to disclose his contributions to the Clinton Foundation ($75,000) despite reporting on the Foundation. And only when caught did he offer an apology. Sound familiar?
  6. "Telling darkies"? Who is the racist one here, harry? The fact is Trump didn't mention their race or color (unlike YOU) in his tweets. He merely observed truthfully that they came from broken, corrupt countries. And suggested that maybe they should have stayed and helped fix those countries ... rather than try to tear down ours (which, if you're the least bit honest, is what they're trying to do here), harry. I see nothing wrong in suggesting that. But using language like you just did? I call that race baiting ... and that's both racist and ugly.
  7. Maineman, you've stated previously that you were “completely against” the invasion of Iraq. You said 9/11 had “nothing to do” with Saddam or Iraq. You said it was “total bullcrap that Saddam would EVER team up with Al Qaeda.” In light of your current statement and what we know now for a fact, have you changed your mind about that? Because we know Saddam and AQ were in communication. And it certainly appears that Saddam's regime knew details about the upcoming attacks that it could not have known without being involved in some way. We know that members of AQ was present in Iraq before the invasion. We know they were plotting terrorist attacks against the West from Iraq before the invasion. We know that Saddam was aware of these people and did nothing to constrain them. Plus we know that Saddam was delighted when the WTC towers were attacked ... And in hindsight, we know that destroying AQ in Iraq (which happened) was instrumental in wrecking AQ power worldwide. Granted, other problems were created (like ISIS) (thanks to Obama throwing away the victory in Iraq) but there is no denying that terrorists were in Iraq before in invasion. So do you stand by what you implied … that the war on terror has no geographical boundaries? Or have you changed your mind about Iraq? Let's see if you're consistent. Now I don't expect MM to respond since he claims to have me on ignore (because I ask difficult questions like this). So I give permission for others to copy this into their posts so MM can't claim he didn't see it.
  8. https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/15/john-roberts-citizenship-decision-legally-politically-corrupt/ Supreme Court justices are not prone to toss around words like “unprecedented” lightly. That should tell the observer something about the handling of this case. Unequal Treatment Before the Law As for Thomas’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s ruling was based on an “administration-specific standard,” little could be more inconsistent with the law, which is supposed to treat people, including presidents, equally. It is breathtaking to behold the court’s extreme intrusion into the Commerce Department’s business, halting one of its plainly discretionary actions on grounds that Thomas says had never even been contemplated before, given the extreme deference with which the courts have treated our mushrooming administrative state for decades. It bears noting that in a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito went so far as to say that the inclusion of the census citizenship question “may not be challenged under the APA” altogether. In other words, the majority’s view was truly extraordinary, even for some of the court’s least sympathetic judges to the administrative state. More on the deference issue momentarily. Last but not least, since when is the Supreme Court in the business of going beyond constitutionality to mind-reading as to why bureaucrats devise policies that are constitutional? It seems the court itself engaged in projection. Was not the court’s own decision “pretextual,” seeing as it took something that was constitutional and found, in its own words, a “contrived” reason to block it? Was not the admission of constitutionality here a tell that the merits mattered not to the court? Of course, even if the Trump administration had myriad reasons for including the question, and even if we played devil’s advocate and assumed some of the reasons were political, if the citizenship question is constitutional, again, shouldn’t that be the end of it? The administrative state is self-evidently not independent and apolitical. One need only look at the resistance of the contemporary administrative state to its chief executive, President Trump, to see this proven in real time. But duly elected congressmen and presidents, not courts, are supposed to determine what and how policy is administered. Undermining the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court Further undermining the legitimacy of this ruling is the challenge in squaring the chief justice’s apparently pretextual opinion with his other rulings this term, and his overall view of his role as protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court. The Wall Street Journal editorial board highlights Justice Roberts’ apparent hypocrisy: Should not someone as dedicated to stare decisis and the purported independence of the judiciary as Justice Roberts have practiced what he preached? When a court rules against something clearly legal, on an invented rationale that arguably should have never even been considered, can this be perceived as anything other than a political act? Occam’s Razor suggests that the court’s attribution of bad faith to the Trump administration seems to be based above all in one core belief that can be summarized in three words: “Orange man bad.” The sliver of a silver lining in the tortured majority opinion, if this ruling was applied broadly and taken to its logical conclusion, would be that the entire administrative state could collapse on itself since virtually every decision made by its bureaucrats could be attacked as pretextual. A Double Standard? While there is a larger contingent of Supreme Court justices hostile towards rule-by-agencies than ever before, it seems clear that the court’s progressives and chief justice would not let this happen. Does anyone believe a President Obama or even a President Bush would have had his administration’s actions subjected to such a standard? President Trump is being held to a standard all his own. That means we are fast-approaching a time without standards. The Supreme Court remanded the question to the district court from whence the case came, allowing the Trump administration the opportunity to try to rectify the “pretext” issue. President Trump and Attorney General William Barr have declared it would be practically impossible to accomplish this and fight the outstanding litigation in time to get the question incorporated into the 2020 census. Instead, the administration’s workaround is to take executive action enabling it to collect data from a variety of federal agencies in an attempt to compile population numbers by citizenship status. That the court forced the administration into a series of unsatisfactory choices to collect this data is in and of itself terrible. If the president cannot get a fair hearing at the most sacrosanct institution of law, then our system has no legitimacy. What the Supreme Court has said here is that we are a nation of men, not laws, and thus, that we may have no justice at all. While according to Barr the Trump administration was loathe to consider flouting the Supreme Court on this issue, it is becoming apparent that at some point the administration is going to need to take on the rolling, true constitutional crisis created by the acts of judicial supremacy we are witnessing today. Absent such a response, the Supreme Court is likely to continue thwarting perfectly lawful administration policy, just as lower courts have done with universal injunctions. Our republican system of government may well demand it. But let me add my 2 cents. Justice Roberts has made ruling after ruling since Obama became President that defy explanation … that are illogical. That make no sense. Prior to that, his rulings were consistent and well founded ... it's why his nomination was approved. So what’s going on? As I said in an earlier thread ( https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/261895-scotus-loses-its-census-over-citizenship/?tab=comments#comment-1061198532 ), I think it’s time to consider a serious possibility … that Justice Roberts is being bribed or blackmailed by the left ... by Obama and his associates. Judge Roberts started acting squirrelly about the time Obama began spying on everyone using the intelligence community. We now KNOW they did this. So is it all that far fetched to think Obama might have tried to acquire dirt on members of the Supreme Court, too … since the Supreme Court was going to be so important in the coming struggle on issue after issue? What else can explain Chief Justice Roberts' sudden conversion from one who had decided to strike down Obamacare to a justice who dishonestly twisted and perverted the law to uphold it as constitutional? What else can explain Roberts' conversion from being sharply critical of the FISA court during his nomination to allowing it to be illegally used in the way it was against Trump … right under his nose (since he is in charge of overseeing the FISA Court)? What else can explain this illogical decision by him regarding the census and citizenship? There are credible allegations that John Brennan and James Clapper, working for Obama, hacked Roberts' phone, computer, etc and discovered something that would give them leverage over Roberts. Perhaps it was proof that he illegally adopted his sons, as has been suspected. Or perhaps something worse. There are tapes, released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow, that show real estate billionaire Timothy Blixseth explaining Brennan and Clapper’s surveillance program to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Mike Zullo. At one point, the three begin pulling up specific names of targeted individuals on a computer screen. You can hear Blixseth say “You know who that guy is? That’s the head of the FISA court they hacked into, Reggie Walton.” He also says, “John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, was hacked.” Here are the tapes … https://soundcloud.com/theamericanreport/pt-2-blixseth-says-they-tried-to-destroy-cia-contractor-montgomery-then-hired-him-back-in-2009 Larry Klayman was the attorney for former NSA and CIA contractor and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery. Montgomery says this about who he is … “I was a CIA contractor both under John Brennan and under James Clapper and these individuals were running domestic surveillance programs in the United States collecting information on Americans. This isn’t political. They were collecting information on Republicans and Democrats. But they collected everything they could find. Bank accounts, phone numbers, chats, emails, and they collected a massive amount of it under the Obama administration.” Montgomery delivered to the FBI 47 hard drives and data amounting to more than 600 million pages of documentation on the surveillance scheme of Obama, thinking the FBI would do something about it. Then-FBI director James Comey’s general counsel James Baker took the data into his possession … and then nothing happened. NOTHING. Despite possessing Montgomery’s bombshell whistleblower revelations, Comey never acted on or publicized the information. And of course we know why now. Comey was part of the seditious cabal and coup. Referring to information that Montgomery showed him, Blixseth, in the above audio clip, says “This guy showed me 900 million phone calls. And I see myself in there. I see people I know. I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg is in there.” Folks, you need to accept the fact that Obama was SPYING on numerous Americans and it is only logical to believe that he used what he found to gain advantage. He wasn't doing it for no reason. And who better to blackmail than a critical Supreme Court Justice who would rule in numerous cases that were bound to come before the court during and after his Presidency. That Roberts also oversaw a key part of the “insurance policy” they hatched against Trump was just icing on the cake. Roberts being blackmailed explains so much. The illegal surveillance system was real. It even had a name “The Hammer” (HAMR). The existance of HAMR was confirmed when Wikileaks dropped the Vault & catch of classified CIA documents about CIA hacking programs. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was real and it was run by John Brennan, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and a few others in the CIA, intel community, DOJ and FBI. It was an operation to damage and impeach President Trump because they were afraid that Trump’s Presidency would lead to public exposure of what they did … i.e., illegally spy on countless Americans using HAMR. Montgomery maintains that Brennan and Clapper illegally collected data on 159 Article III judges, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, and one-time head of the FISA court Judge Reggie Walton. Everything the past 3 years has been about covering that up. And you can see why. It’s EXPLOSIVE. Fortunately, the coverup failed. So now they are desperately trying to just keep from being prosecuted. It's a dangerous time for the Republic. These people would rather see open civil war in this country than be held accountable for what did. This isn’t a fairy tale folks … this isn’t fake news … this is a real threat. Our country hangs in the balance depending on what happens now. If these people win, all of us ... ALL OF US ... will be living in a totalitarian nightmare. Think about that.
×
×
  • Create New...