Has Tony Podesta Been Arrested?

a reply to: Sillyolme

How you still have any faith in the country's media establishment is beyond me.

a reply to: seagull


Amen to that seagull!

The elite are definitely the source of our troubles, and I'd throw a giant going away party for all of 'em

Whether it is Trump or Podesta/Clinton (or whoever else), I will buy everyone a round at the bar the minute we hear of indictments. Seriously though, I can forgive a lot of stuff with politicians (the dumb things they say on Twitter, for instance), but I cannot abide corruption/crime.

If they truly bring enough of these corrupt clowns down, I think our country *might* just be OK

a reply to: purplemer

Ugh that website is straight trash to look at! What kind of source is this? You know anyone can put anything they want on the net, right?

I will say this is unlikely.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

tik tik tik tik tik tik
tik tik tik tik tik tik
tik tik tik tik tik tik

Why are trump fans using the tic toc thingy, where still waiting on hanity to drop is first bomb from 2 months ago.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

tik tik tik tik tik tik
tik tik tik tik tik tik
tik tik tik tik tik tik

Why are trump fans using the tic toc thingy, where still waiting on hanity to drop is first bomb from 2 months ago.

toc toc toc toc toc toc
toc toc toc toc toc toc
toc toc toc toc toc toc

How ironic that if Hillary would've won the Podesta Group would be a major player today.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

No it wasn't sealed. No one paid attention to it. He appeared in court and everything. Court isn't sealed lol.

SHhurrrrr ...

The FBI arrested Papadopoulos in Virginia on August 1, 2017. ... Keeping the entire proceeding under seal for a month after his plea

If we are to believe that is true in Podesta's case as well, it is reasonable to believe that Podesta may be flipping on someone else higher-up the food chain. That seems to be the reason they sealed the indictment for Popadopoulos.

That may not be as much of a good thing as you would like.

a reply to: Tempter


I never believed there was any real chance she'd win. In fact, I never took her serious as a candidate - given all the corruption and scandals (even accusations are bad during a campaign). She was a multiply failed candidate (+1 after 11/8/16), and had record low turnout for events/never saw any signs in real people's yards (just campaign offices). In fact, the only place she was doing decent was in the polls, which is why I figured early on the polls were being used as propaganda to deter our voters from even showing up.

MSM/DNC wanted everyone to believe she had it in the bag, which was the only way to deter the mainstream majority from showing up on election day. Fortunately no one fell for that nonsense.

Unfortunately, they now resort to baseless conspiracy theories to explain how their polls were so far off. People don't like being blindsided (especially by something so important), and they'd rather believe confabulations and blatant lies than admit they got everything wrong in 2016.

It is OK though, no need to rehash the election. She lost, bigly. And should she somehow decide to run again in 2020, she'll lose again too. If Democrats care that much about the gender of their candidate, there are plenty of qualified and non-criminal females to choose from.

Note to DNC: when your preferred candidate is under investigation (for the Nth time) by the Feds, it is time to dump them and find a legally/morally sound candidate.

For those who want to bring up the popular vote, it is important to remember that the popular vote (nationally) is meaningless. It does matter state by state/county by county, however. Because that determines the electoral votes. As you'll see in the map, using national popular vote would allow a small minority of densely populated urban areas to pick the President for the rest of us

a reply to: introvert

What makes you think I wouldn't like something ?

a reply to: JBurns

Note to DNC: when your preferred candidate is under investigation (for the Nth time) by the Feds, it is time to dump them and find a legally/morally sound candidate.

So that means Trump is out of the question for 2020, right?

For those who want to bring up the popular vote, it is important to remember that the popular vote (nationally) is meaningless. It does matter state by state/county by county, however. Because that determines the electoral votes. As you'll see in the map, using national popular vote would allow a small minority of densely populated urban areas to pick the President for the rest of us

I agree. We have a process in place that we should stick with.

Still does not shield us from idiots electing idiots.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

What makes you think I wouldn't like something ?

Because it may not be directed at the people you would like it to be.

If what you say is true, though.

a reply to: introvert


Trump isn't under investigation for anything. Next

Still does not shield us from idiots electing idiots.

Sure it did. Kept Hillary out of the White House didn't it?

a reply to: introvert


You do realize Trump has the highest level security clearance, right? They just don't give those out. He's already been investigated by multiple agencies, who clearly found nothing (or he'd have no clearance, even when he was a mere candidate he had SCI clearance).

Don't you think the extremely intrusive background investigation would've found something? Or Mueller?

Nothing has turned up. No unindicted co-conspiractor. Nothing.

He's not under investigation. The investigation is about foreign influence and corruption, and whether any laws were broke by ANYONE not exclusively Trump.

So no, not like Trump.

nymag.com...

Thus, liberals had high hopes for the president’s address. Finally, Obama would call out the president-elect for what he is; or announce that he would be appointing Merrick Garland during the legislative recess, since he has more right to pick the next Supreme Court justice than the Siberian candidate does; or call on the Electoral College electors to exercise their prerogative to spare the country from an incompetent despot foisted upon this nation by a hostile foreign power.

But instead, Obama said of Russia’s interference, “This was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. They hacked into some Democratic Party emails … routine stuff.”

The president said that he had worried the hacks of the Democratic National Committee — and of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta — might presage an attack on America’s voting infrastructure.

“So in early September when I saw president Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be serious consequences if he didn’t,” Obama explained. “And in fact we did not see further tampering of the election process.”

In other words, Russia didn’t ultimately do anything extraordinary to us. Foreign governments are going to, occasionally, succeed in hacking email systems. What was extraordinary was what we did to ourselves.

The paid liars and drug dealers (our intelligence community, especially the Central lack of Intelligence Agency) can keep their leaked assessments. IC agencies are part of the executive branch, and I'm really surprised Trump hasn't dissolved these cesspools and replaced them with private contractors.

And according to Obama himself, every last part of this elaborate Russian hacking/collusion nonsense is just that: nonsense.

I will even go so far as to thank Russia just in case they did actually do something to prevent Hillary Clinton from taking over our government. I don't believe they actually did, but just in case! She is the most corrupt and least deserving politician. She has zero brains, zero talent and zero skill outside of peddling influence to foreign countries and special interests at the public's expense.

a reply to: JBurns

Trump isn't under investigation for anything. Next

Sure he is.

www.washingtonpost.com... 5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.04407e7f123b

Sure it did. Kept Hillary out of the White House didn't it?

Yup, but we still got one in Trump.

Congrats...I guess.

You do realize Trump has the highest level security clearance, right? They just don't give those out. He's already been investigated by multiple agencies, who clearly found nothing (or he'd have no clearance, even when he was a mere candidate he had SCI clearance).

The president does not have a security clearance.

Don't you think the extremely intrusive background investigation would've found something? Or Mueller?

No. There was no background check.

He's not under investigation. The investigation is about foreign influence and corruption, and whether any laws were broke by ANYONE not exclusively Trump.

Including potential obstruction of justice Trump may have had a part in.

a reply to: introvert


He absolutely had a security clearance during his campaign, even though I am incorrect about possessing a current one.

All candidates are cleared for access to daily IC briefings. They most certainly do have security clearances.

Unless I'm mistaken about that part, too? I am shocked the President isn't subject to security clearance screening, although I guess most classification policy comes from the executive branch anyhow. Nonetheless, it is interesting. Learn something new everyday I guess.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: purplemer

Ugh that website is straight trash to look at! What kind of source is this? You know anyone can put anything they want on the net, right?

I posted this in the gray area and requested confrimation or denial. I never said it was true or not. It got moved by a mod to this forum instead.

The longer he is missing in action the more likely this is to be true...

When all this stuff came out (pedo rings) it was all pretty unbelievable.

And even this - article .. not sure it was true.

But now seeing Weiner go to jail, maybe all of it is true. According to Prince, the DOJ even pushed back threatening the NYPD ..but now Weiner is in jail.

I would not be so shocked if others were indicted also.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: introvert


He absolutely had a security clearance during his campaign, even though I am incorrect about possessing a current one.

All candidates are cleared for access to daily IC briefings. They most certainly do have security clearances.

Unless I'm mistaken about that part, too? I am shocked the President isn't subject to security clearance screening, although I guess most classification policy comes from the executive branch anyhow. Nonetheless, it is interesting. Learn something new everyday I guess.

No. Candidates are not even required to pass a background check to receive security briefings.

Clapper denied Ryan's request, citing that "Nominees for president and vice president receive these briefings by virtue of their status as candidates, and do not require separate security clearances before the briefings," Clapper wrote.

www.cbsnews.com...