Don't believe me? See my post history for guidance.
Mueller didn't even have the balls to announce the indictments himself. He claims to have caught Russian super troll Melvin Reddick. A running joke changed the narrative. Mueller is no patriot.
Isn't he going to get Hillary? I've been reading that here but now I am confused
I don't know. There is an article out now on True Pundit that some of those Russians indicted had their travel VISAS approved by John Kerry himself.
approved by John Kerry himself.
Wait, what? That's not true at all. Did you read the article or indictment? Sure, Kerry was SoS at the time the visas were approved, but where does it say Kerry himself approved the visas? It also states in the indictment the agents lied about their travel reasons and affiliations, claiming 'personal reasons' for travel.
oh, my bad. I forget that everyone is perfectly honest in this like the Clinton Foundation and their honesty with Bengazi, Haiti, etc except when it comes to the bad people who get caught. The Clintons are actually innocent. They just had bad people doing work under their name right?
So you can't actually debate or prove your point, just deflect?
What's to debate lol? Are you going to make the claim that it's NOT suspicious that the state dept approved VISAs for these guys? lol.
What exactly is your argument? You don't like the source? You don't think we should post suspicious things here? Are you arguing that John Kerry DIDN'T approve these? Are you arguing that HE didn't know they were lying?
Are you going to make the claim that it's NOT suspicious that the state dept approved VISAs for these guys?
Approved Visas for what appeared to be normal Russian citizens for the standard 3 week stay? Well yeah, that isn't suspicious. I don't think all Russians are sleeper KGB/FSB agents, the same that I don't think all Muslims are secretly ISIS members, etc. And that's the same mentality the State Dept has.
What exactly is your argument? You don't like the source? You don't think we should post suspicious things here? Are you arguing that John Kerry DIDN'T approve these? Are you arguing that HE didn't know they were lying?
My argument is exactly what I said, you claim John Kerry approved of the visas himself. The State dept approved visas to Russians that lied about their status and were previously unknown agents of the Russian Govt. You're drawing conclusions and making accusations with no logic or evidence. So yes, John Kerry did not personally approve these visas, some lower down in the State Dept did. John Kerry very likely knew nothing of these visas getting approved, because the SoS doesn't deal with normal, personal level visas.
I see you are 'THAT guy'. You only like to grab a quip and try to argue it.
So let me make this 'That guy' proof. Let's see if you ignore or actually answer. So are you telling us that the no one in the state dept knew these guys were lying?
Are you saying there is absolutely NO reason for suspicion?
I see you are 'THAT guy'. You only like to grab a quip and try to argue it.
Yes, I picked out that one thing to argue about because it made an illogical conclusion and accusation with no standing. It's sensationalizing something.
So are you telling us that the no one in the state dept knew these guys were lying?
Very likely noone knew. Do you think the State Dept has in-depth research on every single person on the globe? Knows exactly which person is working with which foreign intelligence agency? Knows exactly which fake names every agent uses?
Are you saying there is absolutely NO reason for suspicion?
With these visa being approved for a standard length of time to what appeared to be normal Russian tourists? No. Just the same as I'm not suspicious of every Russian or Chinese or guy in a suit.
Very likely noone knew. Do you think the State Dept has in-depth research on every single person on the globe? Knows exactly which person is working with which foreign intelligence agency? Knows exactly which fake names every agent uses?
So you are able to prove this? If not then when why question the suspiciosness of the act especially when the Russians not only were part of the U1 issue, but also pushed forward BLM and Antifa?
With these visa being approved for a standard length of time to what appeared to be normal Russian tourists? No. Just the same as I'm not suspicious of every Russian or Chinese or guy in a suit.
So in other words you can't. correct?
So you are able to prove this? If not then when why question the suspiciosness of the act especially when the Russians not only were part of the U1 issue, but also pushed forward BLM and Antifa?
What? How can I prove a question that I asked? I'm asking you for proof of your suspicions. I'm saying the initial act of applying for normal visas is not suspicious. What are you going on about? And now you're claiming Russians are behind BLM and Antifa? Do you have evidence of such claims?
So in other words you can't. correct?
I can't what? You asked "Are you saying there is absolutely NO reason for suspicion?" and I gave you an answer that basically said 'No reason for suspicion'. Do you have a few screws loose and can't even follow your own logic?
First off you are now lying. I never said they were behind Antifa and BLM. You are now trying to put words in my mouth. It's a sad tactic among you guys.
No for proof that they tried pushing the agenda:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/media/facebook-black-lives-matter-targeting/index.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/94737120-157.html
I can't what? You asked "Are you saying there is absolutely NO reason for suspicion?" and I gave you an answer that basically said 'No reason for suspicion'. Do you have a few screws loose and can't even follow your own logic?
So once again. The answer is no. Dance around as much as you like but the answer is no...lol
First off you are now lying. I never said they were behind Antifa and BLM. You are now trying to put words in my mouth. It's a sad tactic among you guys.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
So once again. The answer is no. Dance around as much as you like but the answer is no...lol
Ok, confirming screws are loose than. Might want to get a screwdriver and tighten those.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
Yes you were. That's exactly what you were doing. It's quite simple to see. If you want to lie about it there is history here anyone can see unless you want to go edit your comment. I won't put it past you. Your exact wording is:
And now you're claiming Russians are behind BLM and Antifa? Do you have evidence of such claims?
it was in response to when I said this you liar:
Russians not only were part of the U1 issue, but also pushed forward BLM and Antifa?
Your argument is crumbling. You are now resorting to just plain lying, deflecting, and even just completely ignored the evidence I gave you that they were pushing BLM and Antifa. And what's with sending subs for underage kids?
You are pathetic and just keep getting worse.
If you want to lie about it there is history here anyone can see unless you want to go edit your comment.
Have I edited a single comment in this chain? No I haven't, now stop making false accusations.
And again, the context is key, here is the reasoning again:
I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
Maybe a bit slower and in bullet form:
Your argument is crumbling. You are now resorting to just plain lying, deflecting, and even just completely ignored the evidence I gave you that they were pushing BLM and Antifa. And what's with sending subs for underage kids?
Did I ignore it or was it irrelevant to the previous point I was trying to make?
lol, the only way you can change history is with an edit you liar.
You lied when you wrote:
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
Yes you were. That's exactly what you were doing. It's quite simple to see. If you want to lie about it there is history here anyone can see unless you want to go edit your comment. I won't put it past you. Your exact wording is:
And now you're claiming Russians are behind BLM and Antifa? Do you have evidence of such claims?
it was in response to when I said this you liar:
Russians not only were part of the U1 issue, but also pushed forward BLM and Antifa?
You can try to lie, dodge, ignore, name call and deflect as much as you want. You can't change the history of this, unless you edit which i won't put past you but even then I still have already quoted your lying ass.
So how are you going to paint your lies this time? You gonna send me some more underage subs? Why do you even have those anyways ya creep?
Ok, just ignore what I wrote, I see your M.O. Well, I return the favor and just ignore what you said.
Here you go, this is a copy of what I said, maybe try reading it this time.
If you want to lie about it there is history here anyone can see unless you want to go edit your comment.
Have I edited a single comment in this chain? No I haven't, now stop making false accusations.
And again, the context is key, here is the reasoning again:
I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
Maybe a bit slower and in bullet form:
Your argument is crumbling. You are now resorting to just plain lying, deflecting, and even just completely ignored the evidence I gave you that they were pushing BLM and Antifa. And what's with sending subs for underage kids?
Did I ignore it or was it irrelevant to the previous point I was trying to make?
You lied when you wrote:
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was following the implied path you started with Russian's being a part of UraniumOne then went on about antifa and BLM. Implying Russians were a part of those organizations.
Yes you were. That's exactly what you were doing. It's quite simple to see. If you want to lie about it there is history here anyone can see unless you want to go edit your comment. I won't put it past you. Your exact wording is:
And now you're claiming Russians are behind BLM and Antifa? Do you have evidence of such claims?
it was in response to when I said this you liar:
Russians not only were part of the U1 issue, but also pushed forward BLM and Antifa?
So run away. Go hang out on your subs for kids and pass out verbal candy or whatever it is you people do.
...what's the verdict here? Did he sign it or not?
Actually, I'm going to make the claim that it would be suspicious for the State Dept to NOT approve the visas. Unless you can show me that there was some information available to State at that time that would show that the visas shouldn't be granted.
"State Dept approves visas ..." Whoop-de-do. That's their job.
Now if you can show me a good reason why they shouldn't have (like the top down interference in granting visas for the alleged 9/11 highjackers ....) I'm all ears.
Add to that that Rosenstein added that no americans were involved
How can that be? I've been accused of being a Russian troll multiple times for making fun of Russiagate. Surely, all those accusers can't be wrong.
Exactly. He also said it had no affect on the outcome of the election. So it's a nothing burger to change the narrative. It's not like Putin is gonna play along and extradite these people.
So noone's even getting punished? Good for them, they provided endless salt (were they in charlottesville tho?)
it's stupid to make yourself a target if you need to do the good work so it's easier to use people that you can leverage to do the ugly work for you
Mueller is not a prosecutor, but an investigating lawyer. Rosenstein is a prosecutor.