12 sealed indictments now.....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
In 2013?
Hmm....
If we are going back that far for Trump are we going back that far for all of them that the investigation touches?

If so there will be a WHOLE lot of politicians in office at that time that will have some explaining to do...

4 years ago? Sure. If the Russians potentially have blackmail material on the President of the United States does it expire after four years?

What other Presidents are you talking about that had a party with Russian hookers paid for by Putin?

How about Roy Moore in Alabama? If he fondled a 14 year old girl and hit on other young teen age girls 30 years ago when he was in his 30's, does he get a pass too?

a reply to: soberbacchus

lol it is only "blackmail" material if it would embarrass trump
do you think hookers would embarrass trump?

is that even illegal in russia?

originally posted by: RadioRobert

That really means nothing without more information.

What I have seen is that sometimes there are 2-3 sealed indictments, seeing 6 sealed indictments is rare. But instead there are now at least 294 if not more sealed indictments. It does mean that something unprecedented is occurring.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: RadioRobert

That really means nothing without more information.

What I have seen is that sometimes there are 2-3 sealed indictments, seeing 6 sealed indictments is rare. But instead there are now at least 294 if not more sealed indictments. It does mean that something unprecedented is occurring.

Except that alleged number was for the DC District Court. Not for a string of federal courts across multiple states. Without knowing what is normal volume for those states, it doesn't really mean much. It makes sense that the state of California generates a lot more indictments than smaller states or the tiny District Court (which only had generated 188 total sealed/unsealed cases by 30 OCT) would. I don't know what California, for example, generates typically, nor what percentage of those are generally sealed do you?

The DC numbers are clearly anamolous. These other numbers can't simply be added to that and mean anything without knowing a lot more.

not sure if it was posted anywhere on ATS before, but it connects some dots pretty nicely. if true, Trump trolled everyone from the very beginning.



now, i'm not saying Trump isn't a part of the swamp himself. imho, it's all going down according to the plan. the whole left vs right conflict is just a divide & conquer tactic, and since some of the crap that was done got out, someone has to clean in up to stabilize the situation, and that someone is Trump. left side, right side, doesn't matter in the end, when those pulling the strings own both, Trump included. of course, people will see it as a change for the better, but in the long run it's just an illusion.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

There's an entire thread on that subject here...minus the video. You should add it.

Since folks keep wondering and pointing to whatever experts in law, here is the paper I pulled my numbers from.

This is a Federal Judicial Center study with numbers from 2006. Yes thats a few years back, but it should be pretty representative of the number of sealed indictments that happen in Federal court today.

Federal Study

Page 17 is the one to look at.



Out of 66,458 cases total in ALL Federal Courts, there were only 284 sealed indictments. This is coming from the actual source, not someone with any agenda or speaking without knowledge.

a reply to: Vasa Croe


Then 842 over a 10 day period this month is very unusual isn't it.
842 Sealed Indictments filed 10/30 thru 11/10: investmentwatchblog.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Unusual is an understatement.

Whatever this is, it's gonna be big.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Then 842 over a 10 day period this month is very unusual isn't it.
842 Sealed Indictments filed 10/30 thru 11/10: investmentwatchblog.com...

Based on the study I linked, if all are in the federal court system, then yes it would be HIGHLY unusual.

a reply to: darkbake

From my research, I found out that the dossier was definitely used as part of the reason for getting the FISA warrant on Paul Manafort

FBI have been distancing themselves from the dossier, with the FBI saying they no longer take it seriously and need to independently verify any facts in the dossier prior to using them in their work.

These two statements contradict each other.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: carewemust

Unusual is an understatement.

Whatever this is, it's gonna be big.

The lack of leaks indicate that they are not related to any BIG targets, don't cha think?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: carewemust

Unusual is an understatement.

Whatever this is, it's gonna be big.

The lack of leaks indicate that they are not related to any BIG targets, don't cha think?

If all are in Federal courts...no. it would indicate they are part of a very large operation. If that is the case, then leaks would be prosecuted the same as those indicted, possibly even more harsh.

Trouble is, MSM has diluted the meaning of terms lately...leaks aren't illegal unless they are illegal, and collusion isn't illegal unless it's illegal...if you (not carewemust, just in general) don't understand what I just said then it's likely you won't.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: darkbake

From my research, I found out that the dossier was definitely used as part of the reason for getting the FISA warrant on Paul Manafort

FBI have been distancing themselves from the dossier, with the FBI saying they no longer take it seriously and need to independently verify any facts in the dossier prior to using them in their work.

These two statements contradict each other.

That was the whole point.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you a cop?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you a cop?

Right now I am not (dealing with medical issues). I am post certified though and my license is still active.

a reply to: xuenchen

It wasn't your post to say Foxy.
Why don't you just let people speak for themselves. Besides don't you have another baseless conspiracy theory that needs your attention.
Like...Implants...lol

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wishing you good health. Get well soon.

Did you used to be a cop?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: carewemust

Unusual is an understatement.

Whatever this is, it's gonna be big.

The lack of leaks indicate that they are not related to any BIG targets, don't cha think?

If all are in Federal courts...no. it would indicate they are part of a very large operation. If that is the case, then leaks would be prosecuted the same as those indicted, possibly even more harsh.

Trouble is, MSM has diluted the meaning of terms lately...leaks aren't illegal unless they are illegal, and collusion isn't illegal unless it's illegal...if you (not carewemust, just in general) don't understand what I just said then it's likely you won't.

Yeah but there is lots of ways a ournalist could find out. Court clerks judges their assistants the jurors their friends. I tend to think if it was on the scale your implying the media would know by now.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: RadioRobert

That really means nothing without more information.

What I have seen is that sometimes there are 2-3 sealed indictments, seeing 6 sealed indictments is rare. But instead there are now at least 294 if not more sealed indictments. It does mean that something unprecedented is occurring.

There are 294 indictments? How do I check this? It does sound unusual. Geez.