**BREAKING** Trump drops a bombshell - "The Russian Witch Hunt is Rigged"

It's hard to not come to the conclusion that trump is ego-focused and impulsive. Sure, he might be good at his previous job, but he's a terrible president.

He has been the most open president, but used his massive voice for mostly nonsense. It doesn't matter if the elites and bankers are after him. His behavior has been unacceptable for a man of that position.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Has anybody mentioned that "He" also said the election was rigged?

Until he won? (because he expected to lose)

After being elected he said "I guess it wasn't rigged". (Not "I was wrong".)

And obviously now he is expecting to be guilty of all manner of wrongdoing?

He's just trying to stay a step ahead.


hahahahahahah

It was rigged for HRC, ask Bernie fans!

No this was about the whole thing, from Russia collusion being the Dem's doing it to stealing votes, is a big set up.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The amount of effort put into the OP is the amount of effort you'll get from my replies. Sound fair? Not much to add when the OP is literally a screen capture of a Tweet.

That's what peeks my interest the most.

How can this tweet be taken to such dramatic extremes, such as with the descriptor "bombshell", when there is no other context to go with it. Literally, the OP is very void of context and is, honestly, quite lazy.

It's an ATS soap opera thread created to stir up bickering and be a vehicle of the OP's partisan douchebaggery. Yet the same grown man that posts threads for dramatic effect, sourced from twitter of all places, has the balls to question someone else's intelligence?

Since you and unenlightened would rather discuss posting contributions, threads, OPs and low-information, instead of the team-Hillarys 'Trump colluded with Russia' fake narrative pushed onto the MSM, I posit the fact that you are too low-information and scared to man-up and be a consistent thread creator.

21,000+ posts in 3 years, thats about 18 posts per day, every day. You've made 23 pathetic threads, the last one being 18 months ago.

No-one cares for your contributions because they are all pathtic and weak sauce with no substance.

ATS has Lions and it has rabbits.

You and unenlightened fall squarely into the category of rabbits - pathetic & useless eaters, frightened to face the community on your own merits, instead, hiding in the threads of the Lions hoping your status can be elevated.

A piss-poor excuse for 'Americans' - thank god you are the minority.

Well you could say some of that about my threads as introvert "and unelightened". Some people are more creative than others.

I know statistical analysis of raw data since that is the main focus of my vocation the last 20+ years and studied our Constitution as a History nut as child who might have went with Historical studies as a vocation if you could make a decent living somehow with it. Those area's are boooorrrring Sublime. You on the other hand, have much more interesting ideas than me in this field and I give to you guys and anti too who can start a good political one that is worthy of a heated debate.

a reply to: Justoneman

NOTHING was rigged for Clinton; if something was show us evidence.

Russian interference in our Election is a fact, as is, at this point, collusion on the part of several Trump campaign members with Russian agents.

You have zero evidence of Democrats "stealing votes" on the national level and you have ZERO evidence that Sanders was cheated.

Frankly, that's all lies and appeals to emotion. IF its not, prove it with facts.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well in truth Obama was having his doj surveiling his campaign.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The most ingenious executive order ever. Watch and learn.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm how about writing her exoneration months before interviewing her? Then using the excuse of 'no intent' (when none was required) as the grounds for not pursuing charges?

Thre's also lots of evidence sanders was cheated. Just look for it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As early as 2009, according to this DNC Platform Committee Member, she was already lined up for president and that fact was known by one of her benefactors:

...(Lady Lynn Rothschild knows well and I am sorry say that I supported the McCain/Palin ticket the final weeks-I truly believed Sen McCain was more likely include you his cabinet).

...

BTW, would like your campaign staff for the 2016 election!
Gods speed and tight hug,
Prameela Bartholomeusz
DNC Platform Committee Member

emphasis mine

April 29, 2016
Case No. F-2015-06322

The above is from an email sent on 22 January 2009 congratulating Hillary on the Secretary of State position.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm how about writing her exoneration months before interviewing her? Then using the excuse of 'no intent' (when none was required) as the grounds for not pursuing charges?

Thre's also lots of evidence sanders was cheated. Just look for it.

He was drafting a media response to the most likely outcome ... its not uncommon. He didn't make the decision to "exonerate her" and indeed, he didn't. In fact, that's one of the things the OIG cited him for ... he took it upon himself to publicly castigate her for "gross negligence" when that was not the finding of the prosecutors. It also wasn't his place to buck FBI protocols and make the announcement on his own.

They didn't have to interview her to know that there was no apparent intent to distribute classified data to our enemies.

That's a good sound-byte that Trey Gowdy and company like to spew ... but that's all it is.

There's no evidence that Sanders was cheated. Zero. There was evidence that the DNC was biased against him, and honestly, why not?

Sanders did not have national name recognition and needed the DNC. Further, he was an Independent before he ran on the Democratic ticket and an Independent afterwards. I know the DNC is supposed to "be fair" but we all know that politics is a dirty business.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Do you have any information on any Primaries or Caucuses that have been proven to be illegitimate?

a reply to: bastion

Actually your writing is impressive and I think you are obviously well into your recovery and I wish you the best. You're obviously a gentleman, too, I might add. I just took some issue with what I think is an avoidance of the point he was making.

My feelings about Trump are "win-win" in my own political philosophy: He either does a good job as an outsider or is the harbinger of an awful but needed anarchy. My feelings for that reside in a corrupt foreign policy that hides our empire building behind terms such as "bringing democracy to the world" or being the "world's policeman" as if we have such a moral position to stand on. That's my honest "confession."

Most everything else seems political and partisan bickering. Babies are being bombed, sovereign nations destroyed, and terrorism encouraged.

I think that both the GOP and DNC are smack-dab full of weasels who just hide behind those designations while selling out our nation in various ways and are beholden to various and corrupt interests and even under influence of foreign interests in many instances. Whether Trump is sincere or not, he's a hand grenade in the midst of the old school that has much blood on it's hands.

Campaign reform and removing lobbyist influence could fix much of this, but we are too busy fighting each other. The social engineers are making sure of that. Peace to you my friend.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They didn't have to interview her to know that there was no apparent intent to distribute classified data to our enemies.

LMAO, wow. That's not what the intent statute would even apply to. If there was a statute requiring intent, it would be intent to remove classified information from a classified system. Not to distribute it to our enemies (that would be treason, plain and simple). But again, there wasn't a statute for intent and the fact that he cited her lack of intent lays bare that the fix was in. The agents investigating knew the fix was in. They gave immunity to everyone. They let people lie to them over and over. They knew no one was going to do anything about the clinton "matter" because she was to be president.

Loretta Lynch met with bill in the famous tarmac meeting to talk about grandkids (she has none, bill only has two). The FBI lied about there being no documentation about that meeting. Loretta could have simply recused herself, if she had any integrity at all, but refused to do so, why? If she was in it for justice, she could have just handed it off to any old DoJ attorney, right? I mean. it was obvious there was no there, there, right? But instead she forced comey to go out there and cover for her. Why?

Get your head out of the sand. It's obvious that the fix was in. We've seen resignations and firings for the handling of the investigation. The real question we should be discussing right now, is why is there very little being done about it?

a reply to: Dfairlite

You are mistaken.

The relevant statutes are found at 18 USC 793, 18 USC 1924 and 18 USC 2071.

Pointedly, the Midyear Investigation found that there was not reason to prosecute Clinton or her staff under those statues.

Further, the OIG just found that there were no issues of bias regarding those decisions, and that the decisions not to prosecute were in harmony with DOJ policy and history.

You're merely repeating extremist media BS. And it's boring.

a reply to: Gryphon66


Here's 793, just for starters:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Pointedly, the Midyear Investigation found that there was not reason to prosecute Clinton or her staff under those statues.

They found that there was nothing they wanted to prosecute. Not that there was nothing to prosecute. Are you seriously arguing that what hillary did was 100% legal and if anyone else in the federal government did it, they would also just be let off?

Further, the OIG just found that there were no issues of bias regarding those decisions, and that the decisions not to prosecute were in harmony with DOJ policy and history.

That's not what the IG said. The OIG said they had good enough excuses for the decisions they made even if their bias made them lean toward those decisions (a stance which also clears trump of any possible obstruction charges). He found plenty of bias and notice he doesn't actually weigh in on the clinton case evidence and whether it was prosecutable. To claim that it wasn't and use the IG report to back that up is only deluding yourself.

ETA:
The relevant part of the IG report:

The MYE prosecutors stated [in reference to 793(f)]:
[T]he government would likely face a colorable constitutional challenge
to the statute if it prosecuted an individual for committing gross
negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified
information at the time of the removal and never became aware he
had done so.... Moreover, in bringing a vagueness challenge, defense
counsel would also likely point to the significant disagreement as to
the meaning of “gross negligence.”

LMAO that would be a hilarious defense! Hillary didn't know that she had removed classified information? And she never became aware that she had done so?? So why were they using aliases to communicate on this server? Did hillary not instruct people to take classified documents and run them through the unclassified system (yes, yes, she did). So yep she knew what she was doing. This is nothing more than them covering their tracks for a shoddy job done, on purpose.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Also, if you notice the MYE team only reviewed cases where prosecution did not happen. Why? I mean, if your goal was justice, wouldn't you review cases where there was prosecution and cases where there was not to get an idea where on the spectrum your case lies (yes, that is what lawyers do)? On the other hand, if your goal was to cover your tracks for not prosecuting you'd simply need to show that you had a legally sound argument for not prosecuting and would only look at such cases.

ATS spaghetti code being dumb again

a reply to: Dfairlite

I have been very clear and you and I have argued this many times.

Your tactic in use here is to make a large quote, toss in some boldng and declare that your interpretations are correct.

You aren’t. The prosecutors in the Clinton Investigation concluded that the case for gross negligence could not be proven. OIG just concluded that the team was not compromised.

You can argue from your viewpoint until you are blue. Until a Federal prosecutor is willing to take it to trial ... you’re musing on social media.

Actually, I have hope that someone somewhere will try the case ... because we will never hear the end of it otherwise.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

@realDonaldTrump

This is going to dominate the MSM. Standby for further info, but it reminds me of when he accused Obama of wiretapping his tower.

Note that this Tweet was AFTER additional documents they were stonewalling were provided by the DOJ ( however still a deficient production). You can speculate that he was either told some information or read new documents. Same as the ire tap tweet - he was right bc he knew it. I'll bet anyone its the same thing here. Trump will be proven right , again.

a reply to: mkultra11

.. but he wasn’t right about him being wiretapped, and he’s not right about the Mueller Investigation being rigged.

Multiple indictments in American courts by American grand juries ...

Trump is being Trump.

originally posted by: blueman12

It's hard to not come to the conclusion that trump is ego-focused and impulsive. Sure, he might be good at his previous job, but he's a terrible president.

He has been the most open president, but used his massive voice for mostly nonsense. It doesn't matter if the elites and bankers are after him. His behavior has been unacceptable for a man of that position.

You can say he a terrible person based on your emotions and false liberal moral high ground, but he's actually an efficient and successful President thus far.