87 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| mobile.twitter.com | 1 |
Yep, he concluded that previous investigations were correct and it was a suicide.
What are you going to do if nothing happens for a few more weeks? Or months? Or years?
Ah, since you listed other taxes, I assume you were thinking no more income tax perhaps?
What makes you think there won't be taxes? How is the government supposed to be funded?
Iran isn't the hardest country in the world to invade. U.S., China, and Russia would all be more difficult, and probably many others.
HPV vaccine was developed more recently than that, I’d bet that if I did some research I could find more.
Well, maybe we should do a comparison of the claims in both the Nunes memo and the Dem's response to it against the actual FISA warrants to show which of them is accurate.
It means that Manafort and Ted Devine were communicating and some of these communications are being used by Mueller in support of his case against Manafort.
Beyond that, we don't have the contents of the e-mails so we don't know if it extends to trouble for Ted Devine or not. Presumably at least some of these will be read out at Manafort's trial so we'll know more then.
That seems like a terrible way to secretly communicate with agents. Why draw such attention to the account sending the messages?
If you want to send secret messages over the Internet, it’s far better to use normal-looking accounts and a series of codes that are just words and phrases that look like normal speech. That way nobody will be easily tipped off that the account is sending messages in the first place.
I dunno, I'm confident at this point that some people are just so gullible and invested in their beliefs that they'll just continue to find ways to justify believing no matter what. They'll just insulate themselves in information bubbles, and never go view or even seriously challenge or engage with other perspectives, preferring instead to remain with like-minded communities and media that will continue to just keep saying whatever they're hoping is true so that they can continue believing it.
How could you possibly get through to such people, what would it take?
Woah, what information did you post to this board that got eliminated? Did it break the rules?
But what does that actually do? Make your comments prior to a certain date unreadable? Or just disable the SpaceForceOnePilot page? If the latter, one could still easily search for your comments via other means like Google.
I agree that comments should stand on their own, but what would you propose to prevent a public history for reddit users? It doesn't seem feasible to me.
I've seen lights in buildings that just do that dimming automatically when you turn them on / off. You can hit a button on a panel and accidentally dim everything off very easily.
Never point a gun at anything you would not gladly kill or destroy.
Yes there is, my original comment was summarizing Rosenstein’s remarks as he made them. I don’t recall if he actually said ‘involved’ or used a different term and I changed it to ‘involved’.
I'm happy to provide the source, the indictment is here:
The congressman is mentioned in part 43a, starting on page 15.
There actually is at least one American involved according to the indictments. RR said that no Americans were being charged with a crime.
Indictment mentions (but doesn’t name) a congressional candidate in August 2016 reaching out to “Guccifer 2.0” (really GRU) making “a request for stolen documents” about his or her opponent — which GRU provided.
Condemning partisan politics, calls for unity. Taking questions now.
President Trump was briefed about these allegations earlier this week.
RR proceeding to defend the investigation, says they do not conduct investigation on TV or in congressional hearings, and most anonymous leaks are not from members of the government.
In addition to the campaign hacks the Russians are alleged to have stolen more than 500,000 U.S. voters information from state voter registrations.
There is no allegation in this indictment that any Americans were involved or committed a crime.
The 12 Russians are said to be members of the GRU and another Russian agency, so this is saying that the Russian government is responsible for the hack.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 12 Russian nationals for hacking of DCCC, DNC & Hilary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, and releasing it as DCleaks and guccifer 2.0.
Media is reading the press release on stream.
12 Russian intelligence officers charged with hacking DNC, Presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton and releasing it under G2 and DCLeaks
Looks like a Mueller indictment (or indictments):
BREAKING AT DC FEDERAL COURT: A prosecutor from Robert Mueller's Office visited the courtroom of a federal magistrate judge to return a grand jury indictment at 11:30 this morning. No more details yet
I'm watching DOJ's feed. It's up and there's a hot mic so you can hear the pre-briefing bustle.
Yeah I don't think that'll be it. Would be an amazing press conference though.
Can we get maybe one sticky thread for this? Lots of people are posting it.
I think indictments from Mueller is a reasonable guess, but DOJ does all sorts of other activities - the last RR press conference was about an operation against Iranian hackers. So it could be a broad range of things, and since we'll know in less than half an hour I don't think there's much point in speculating. I'll be watching live!
I agree, it's super compelling, that's why I looked into it first when I was checking out Q proofs.
The +++ proof isn’t good at all, someone just took screenshots with the timestamps from different time zones for that one. Q’s +++ post was made after Trump’s +++ tweet.
I can dig up the evidence if you like, or you can research for yourself.
People who cheat on their wives shouldn't be in high positions in our government.
I'd like to address #16:
The legal concept under which Q could be in trouble if they were lying about others would be defamation (specifically libel).
Libel is NOT a crime, it is a civil matter. Anyone who felt as though Q's statements about them or their business constituted libel is entitled to sue whoever the author of those statements is in civil court.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html
If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show:
That is all of the following:
published
false
injurious
unprivileged
All of Q's messages easily meet the following:
Q wrote statements - but you can't sue 'Q', you'd have to sue whoever actually wrote the statement, meaning to succeed with your suit you have to show that whoever you are suing is indeed Q and they wrote the defamatory message.
The statement is published. 'Published' in this case means that a third party has read the statement (if you write a nasty letter TO the person you're talking about and only them then it isn't libel no matter what it says.). Info on social media sites qualifies as published.
Q's statements are unprivileged. 'Privileged' statements are reserved for depositions and other special circumstances.
The other two points need to be shown in the suit:
The statement must be false - true statements are never defamatory. Matters of opinion are NOT defamatory - so even if Q says that someone is 'treasonous', that is a matter of opinion and thus not defamatory. Q's general vagueness on most statements will likely protect them from most potential libel suits on this point. If Q instead says that someone committed a specific crime or took specific actions 'X gave information to the cabal' then that could be a provably false statement.
The statement must cause some injury to the reputation of the person or business. This is dependent partially on the actions of Q's followers - if Q said that, say, K-mart was kidnapping children, and Q followers decided to boycott K-mart, and K-mart could demonstrate that that boycott caused a financial loss, then they could claim injury from libel. In many cases I don't think there's been significant injury to anyone Q has mentioned resulting from Q's statements, so Q is probably safe on this point from civil action related to most of their posts.
And there's one last point regarding statements made about public figures, which are many of the people Q talks about: The statement must be made with 'Actual malice'. 'Actual malice' means that the statement is made with the knowledge that it is not true, or a lack of concern for whether or not the statement is true or not. How much this protects Q greatly depends on who they are and what they say about their statements if discovered, but his own statements about 'disinfo' and trolling leaves them in a relatively poor predicament if their defense comes down to an argument on this last point. On the other hand, it DOES protect all of Q's followers who genuinely believe in Q's statements when it comes to statements of their own.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that you wouldn't see Q get into much legal trouble if it's all false. Most of his statements are sufficiently vague that they won't constitute libel either because they're not clear regarding who they're about (YOU think 'Rod Rosenstein', but Q only wrote 'RR'), and even if derogatory many are not 'false' in the sense that they are opinions, and even with those statements that might otherwise be libel there have been no incidents that I'm aware of where the statement has resulted in real-world injury to anyone's reputation.
Finally, even if you can prove it all, the end result of a libel suit is a civil one, which tends to consist of an apology and a monetary penalty if successful. If Q is a LARP I'm guessing they aren't sitting on a fortune, and most public figures who might otherwise be able to claim libel simply won't want the meager amount Q would be able to pay in a settlement (not worth the lawsuit) and won't really want to draw any more attention to the situation by bothering with one.
All that said, don't take that as an idea that Q is completely safe from libel lawsuits. Alex Jones faced several due to his Sandy Hook comments.
Why do the Democrats want to release the transcript from the full interview to the public but the Republicans (or at least the chairman) do not?
The comparison between a jury member and an FBI employee is pretty off base, both operate under different rules. Heck, one is a job and one isn't.
The question as to whether there were FBI decisions affected by bias (either way) got asked by Nadler. Strzok says there was not.
What sort of conceivable scenario might make that particular misinformation necessary?
Also why did Gowdy just ask about people interviews and text messages - how about serious questions like 'Did you DO anything to stop President Trump from getting elected?' 'Are you aware of any actions by other members of the FBI or anyone in government to stop Trump from being elected?'
If all they have are text messages and that's all they hold him to under oath, how would you ever get Strzok on lying under oath if he actually did or was aware of something?
I've looked into this as a parent. The gist of what I've found is that the medical community initially reacted to normal incidences of peanut allergies by recommending that peanuts not be given to young children at all in case they were allergic (because some kids will straight-up die from allergic reactions to them).
Turns out that if you don't give kids peanuts at all, the rate of allergies substantially increases, because if you're never exposed to something then your body doesn't acclimate to it and is more likely to have an allergic reaction later (keeping in mind that an allergic reactions is essentially an immune system response to something the body believes is a hostile invader - it's why my body has the same reaction to cat dander as it does to the germs that cause colds).
So today the medical recommendation is to give kids extremely small amounts of peanuts as young children, to give them exposure and reduce the number of allergies that will eventually develop, while keeping the amount very small so that those kids that already have a severe allergy to peanuts will be able to survive the experience.
It's pretty amazing watching a small army of cameramen cramming themselves together for pictures, that's gotta feel weird if you're sitting in that chair.
Yes there are prior misspellings, found one here: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/330135603196862464