Discussion:
Politics and public perception will likely determine Trump's fate
(too old to reply)
docufo
2017-07-23 23:42:26 UTC
Permalink
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law

People are asking the wrong questions about what the president did.
By Jonathan Cohn
HuffPost

A serious conversation about impeaching President Donald Trump is
underway. But it may be going in the wrong direction already.
Even before Wednesday’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate
ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as well as possible attempts
to conceal them, lawyers were all over television arguing whether
Trump’s actions to date constituted an “obstruction of justice” that
would earn a conviction in a normal criminal proceeding. They
particularly focused on the president’s reported request that former FBI
Director James Comey drop an investigation into Trump’s former national
security adviser, Michael Flynn.

But impeachment is not a normal criminal proceeding, and official
constitutional grounds for removal go beyond whether a president has
broken the law. On the contrary, the Constitution reserves impeachment
and removal for instances of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.”

There’s a reason for that. The document’s framers weren’t out to punish
crime when they wrote the impeachment clause. They were trying to
construct a mechanism for removing a threat to democracy.

The question for Congress ― and eventually, the public ― is whether,
given available evidence, Trump constitutes that kind of threat.
Impeachment is about protecting constitutional democracy.

The Constitution is reasonably specific about how Congress goes about
removing a president. The process begins in the House, with the
Judiciary Committee (or some other committee that Congress designates)
drawing up articles of impeachment specifying the president’s alleged
offenses. If the committee approves the articles, the full House
considers them. On the floor, as in committee, a mere majority is
sufficient for approval.

Such a vote ends the actual impeachment phase, which is roughly akin to
an indictment. The question of whether to “convict” falls to the Senate,
where deliberations can appear more judicial than political ― with the
House sending over “managers” who serve the role of prosecutors, and the
president sending his lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the
Supreme Court sits as the presiding officer, ruling on procedural
matters, although the Senate can overrule the chief justice by majority
vote.

Eventually, the Senate withdraws to closed session to deliberate, and
then returns to vote in public, with a hefty two-thirds majority ― 67
senators, if the full Senate is present ― necessary to expel the
president from office and power.
Yet the Constitution is a lot less specific about which transgressions
actually warrant removal. Bribery and treason are clearly defined
enough, but the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a different story.

The framers added the phrase to the impeachment clause at the
Constitutional Convention, when George Mason feared that provisions
against bribery and treason alone would not sufficiently contain a
despotic executive, but James Madison thought Mason’s choice of phrase,
“maladministration,” was overly broad.

“I take the idea to be that they wanted to deal with serious offenses
against the state, not petty illegality,” Josh Chafetz, professor of law
at Cornell, explained over email on Wednesday.

The point, Chafetz said, was to deal with transgressions that “had to do
with aggrandizement of the office, trampling on norms of governance,
etc. They didn’t have to do with contempt in a civil case, or other
small-bore offenses that were largely unrelated to office.”
Clintonian and Nixonian offenses are different.

That standard prevailed in the late 1990s, during the impeachment of
former President Bill Clinton. Nobody questioned that Clinton had broken
the law when, during a deposition for a civil case, he lied under oath
about his sexual relationship with a White House intern. He was guilty
of perjury.

But after the House passed articles of impeachment, the Senate fell well
short of impeaching Clinton, mainly because even Republicans came to
agree with Democrats that he was not guilty of any offense that
qualified as a “high crime.” He had lied to conceal the existence of a
private relationship that many people thought should never have become
public in the first place.

The circumstances were very different in 1974, when the House Judiciary
Committee was preparing articles of impeachment for former President
Richard Nixon. Over the course of two years, thanks to a combination of
intrepid journalism and an aggressive special counsel, it became
apparent that Nixon had conspired with his aides to cover up ― and then
suppress the investigation of ― efforts to spy on and sabotage Democrats
in the 1972 election.

A violation of the criminal law is neither necessary nor sufficient to
make something a high crime or misdemeanor. Josh Chafetz, professor of
law at Cornell

To this day, it remains unclear whether Nixon actually ordered the
Watergate break-in that gave the scandal its name. (For a refresher,
read Dylan Matthew’s comprehensive guide to Watergate at Vox.)
But recordings captured Nixon telling his aides he wanted the FBI to
back off investigation of a crime ― and not just of any crime, but of an
attempt to tamper with a presidential election. They were also evidence
that Nixon was using his control of federal law enforcement to shield
himself and his associates from accountability.

This week’s New York Times revelation ― that Comey has a memo, written
contemporaneously, about Trump urging him to back off the Flynn
investigation ― suggests Trump may have engaged in behavior strikingly
similar to Nixon’s, although he has denied wrongdoing. More such
evidence may emerge, whether through congressional testimony or the
special counsel investigation now getting underway.

It still might not be enough to win a conviction in court, given the
technical definition of “obstruction of justice” and how it would apply
to the president, who occupies a unique position overseeing federal law
enforcement. But, as Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman wrote this week
at Bloomberg View, it could still be an “obvious and egregious abuse of
power” ― the kind that would have eventually led to Nixon’s removal from
office, had he not resigned first.

“A violation of the criminal law is neither necessary nor sufficient to
make something a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment purposes,” he
said. A small crime is not automatically an impeachable offense, he
argued. Alternately, he said, someone could do something immoral that,
while technically legal, could disqualify them from staying in office.
Impeachment always comes down to politics.

In the end, it wasn’t principle that drove Nixon from the presidency. It
was politics. He resisted resignation as long as he could, relenting
only when a group of loyal Republicans told him, in person, he didn’t
have the votes to survive the coming impeachment proceedings.
And so it will be now. Trump’s ability to survive the coming
investigation and what it produces will ultimately depend on whether
Republicans are willing to stand by him.

So far, by and large, they have ― shielding him from inquiries on
everything from Russia to his tax returns ― perhaps because they believe
his continued presence in the White House offers their best opportunity
to pass their legislative agenda, or perhaps because they are not yet
ready to openly challenge a party leader who retains the enthusiastic
support of so many Republican voters.

For better or worse, this, too, is how the framers wanted it.

“The trappings of legality serve to discipline the proceedings and to
prevent them from becoming merely a tool of partisan warfare,” Nicholas
Bagley, law professor at the University of Michigan, said on Wednesday.
“At the same time, the House and the Senate ― not judges ― are charged
with carrying out this judicial-style process. The Constitution’s
drafters knew that political considerations would influence legislators’
judgments. The open-endedness of the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’
phrase affords legislators a lot of room to designate those offenses
that, under the circumstances, warrant impeachment.”

Of course, political conditions change. If the special counsel produces
even more powerful evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, public outrage might
become too overwhelming for this Republican Congress to ignore.
But a lot depends on whether the conversation about Trump’s future in
office focuses on the right question: whether, through his actions, he
has seriously undermined the rule of law or democratic process.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-conversation_us_591dac5ce4b094cdba51c404

Trumpers scream, "Where is the evidence Trump broke the law?! And, what
specific laws might he have broken?! You leftist scumbags are making a
mountain outta' a mole hill!! Fuck you!!!"

If it is perceived that Trump's actions have "undermined the rule of law
or democratic process," it will not necessarily be nailed down to a
specific law being violated, but more likely, as it was in the process
of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, depend largely on that
perception by congress and the public. It came down to politics and
perception then, and it's probably heading the same direction with
Trump's alleged wrongdoings.

In the end, as the article deftly points out, that despite whether
illegalities are legitimized by the letter of the law, or by the
congressional and public's interpretations, the most important action is
to defend the framework of our founding fathers - to preserve the tenets
of our Constitutional democratic process.

That being so, any American who claims he or she really loves the letter
and spirit of that process, Left or Right, who might also make it a
habit to claim to "love" America so very much - even more than the
opposition - has a moral or patriotic obligation to support official
investigations that will help determine the facts and fallacies.

Any American who dismisses such investigations as useless, as a "witch
hunt," because they are convinced Trump and cohorts can be trusted with
their claims of innocence, that ultimately, if their faith is so high
it'll all amount to nothingness, they should therefore welcome the
investigations to determine that the "Left" has conducted a witch hunt -
and delight in making them the laughingstock.

It would seem that if his followers are correct, the investigations will
backfire and perhaps strengthen Trump's hand, and theirs. So, it would
seem, if they are correct it's all BS from the Left, it'll be a juicy
barbecued chicken picnic that's awaiting them as the investigations
prove fruitless.

Wings, drumsticks, or breasts? Or...shock, sadness, and great
embarrassment for his supporters? Finger-lickin' good or ass-kicking bad?

^Y^
U
Steven Douglas
2017-07-24 05:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.

It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.

It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspired
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.

It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.

There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.

All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.

In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.

Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
l***@optusnet.com.au
2017-07-25 23:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspired
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.
It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.
There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.
All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.
In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.
Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
Er Trump is a no issue, just a clown destroying American bureaucracy, which is probably more than any interfering Russian could do, who have scored 1 against a 100 of US interfering in other countries, but never mind once you lose the lead you have lost the race.
Good ole Tyrant Trump!

@:)>
Steven Douglas
2017-07-26 19:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspired
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.
It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.
There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.
All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.
In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.
Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
Er Trump is a no issue,
Tell that to all the whiny Democrats who are in the process of
further destroying their party with their hatred for a duly
elected president, and their attempts to undo the results of
the election.
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
just a clown destroying American bureaucracy,
If by that you mean "draining the swamp", that's a huge reason
why he was elected in the first place. And it's why the career
establishment government bureaucracy in Washington DC are doing
everything they can to run him out of town. It's all going to
backfire on them in the end.
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
which is probably more than any interfering Russian could do,
It's the established bureaucracy who are using that fake
Russia "collusion" thing, so I'm not sure why you'd mention
this to me. Except for the fact you have no idea what you're
talking about, which is is typical of you.
a***@yahoo.com
2017-07-27 06:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspired
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.
It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.
There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.
All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.
In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.
Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
Er Trump is a no issue,
Tell that to all the whiny Democrats who are in the process of
further destroying their party with their hatred for a duly
elected president, and their attempts to undo the results of
the election.
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
just a clown destroying American bureaucracy,
If by that you mean "draining the swamp", that's a huge reason
why he was elected in the first place. And it's why the career
establishment government bureaucracy in Washington DC are doing
everything they can to run him out of town. It's all going to
backfire on them in the end.
Post by l***@optusnet.com.au
which is probably more than any interfering Russian could do,
It's the established bureaucracy who are using that fake
Russia "collusion" thing, so I'm not sure why you'd mention
this to me. Except for the fact you have no idea what you're
talking about, which is is typical of you.
wow, steven you can interpret s/he better than I.
docufo
2017-07-26 05:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
OH BULLSHIT! As much as I and other liberals frowned on the airport
tarmac get-together of Lynch and Bill Clinton, as mostly being an action
of foolhardiness, of impropriety, any "secret meeting" would certainly
not have been scheduled at a busy international airport. It was a matter
of coincidence, and it offered an impromptu opportunity for the two good
pals, family friends for a long time, to chat for 30 minutes. If they'd
wanted anything "secret" it'd be reasonable to assume they'd not be
using the airport.
The news media tracks their flights, arrival and departure, constantly.
It would be rare for any reporter, local or networked, to not be there
for an a photo-op, a brief interview, a shout out, etc. Even airport to
plane conversations are monitored in some cases. It was a hot potato
election, junior, and the media were swarming all over the travel
itineraries of any significant player in the show.
It's absurd to suggest that Clinton and/or AG Lynch had planned a
"secret meeting" at a very busy airport.

The reporters were around at the airport because the FBI security team
instructed them not to use their cell phones and cameras to record
Lynch. How many reporters were there is open to speculation, but in such
a hot election, you can be assured that more than one was there. They
already knew of Lynch's speaking engagement, arrival date and time.

Lynch later apologized for the poor "optics" of the impromptu meeting,
saying it was a lack of judgement on her part. But she failed to mention
it was also the same for Bill Clinton. A foolish meeting by two dopes
that was not arranged, and certainly not intended as a "secret meeting."

You've been misled by right-wing nuts' sites. You might not know that
the local ABC affiliate reporter that broke the story, who wasn't at the
airport, got his info from two unnamed sources, and waited until the
next day to report it. He sat on the story for a whole day for what some
believe was a decision by ABC execs to stall the release of it. It is
likely the two unnamed sources were other reporters or airport employees
(informants).

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/

You need to push your glazed eyes away from right-wing extremist sites
like The Blaze.com LOL!

^Y^
v
Post by Steven Douglas
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspi
red
Post by Steven Douglas
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.
It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.
There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.
All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.
In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.
Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
Steven Douglas
2017-07-26 19:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
OH BULLSHIT! As much as I and other liberals frowned on the airport
tarmac get-together of Lynch and Bill Clinton, as mostly being an action
of foolhardiness, of impropriety, any "secret meeting" would certainly
not have been scheduled at a busy international airport.
They were in a private part of the airport, away from the
"busy" part of the airport.
Post by docufo
It was a matter of coincidence,
How do you know? Why was Bill Clinton there? If you know,
explain it right here. Of course you won't, you never have
a response when I challenge you.
Post by docufo
and it offered an impromptu opportunity for the two good
pals, family friends for a long time, to chat for 30 minutes. If they'd
wanted anything "secret" it'd be reasonable to assume they'd not be
using the airport.
Actually, they should have conducted the meeting in a more
public place. Then everyone would have known what they
talked about, and there would be no controversy.
Post by docufo
The news media tracks their flights, arrival and departure, constantly.
It would be rare for any reporter, local or networked, to not be there
for an a photo-op, a brief interview, a shout out, etc.
But there were no national media there, and the meeting
took place inside an airplane, away from public view.
Post by docufo
Even airport to
plane conversations are monitored in some cases. It was a hot potato
election, junior, and the media were swarming all over the travel
itineraries of any significant player in the show.
Then why didn't the national media know about the meeting?
Why did it take a local reporter to find out about it and
report it before the national media even knew about it?
Post by docufo
It's absurd to suggest that Clinton and/or AG Lynch had planned a
"secret meeting" at a very busy airport.
They almost got away with it, didn't they?
Post by docufo
The reporters were around at the airport because the FBI security team
instructed them not to use their cell phones and cameras to record
Lynch.
Why is that? Why the secrecy?
Post by docufo
How many reporters were there is open to speculation, but in such
a hot election, you can be assured that more than one was there. They
already knew of Lynch's speaking engagement, arrival date and time.
If there were reporters there, why didn't they report the
meeting rather than waiting for the story to be broken by
a local reporter? Is that because the national media are
a bunch of partisan hacks who work hand-in-hand with the
Democratic Party?
Post by docufo
Lynch later apologized for the poor "optics" of the impromptu meeting,
saying it was a lack of judgement on her part. But she failed to mention
it was also the same for Bill Clinton. A foolish meeting by two dopes
that was not arranged, and certainly not intended as a "secret meeting."
But they almost got away with it.
Post by docufo
You've been misled by right-wing nuts' sites. You might not know that
the local ABC affiliate reporter that broke the story, who wasn't at the
airport, got his info from two unnamed sources,
I wonder why the unnamed sources went to him, while the national
media knew nothing about it?
Post by docufo
and waited until the
next day to report it. He sat on the story for a whole day for what some
believe was a decision by ABC execs to stall the release of it.
They wanted a chance to confront Lynch with the allegation
before reporting it.
Post by docufo
It is
likely the two unnamed sources were other reporters or airport employees
(informants).
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
You need to push your glazed eyes away from right-wing extremist sites
like The Blaze.com LOL!
Show where I have ever used The Blaze.com as a source. But
even if I did (which I haven't), why do you think it's okay
for you to use blatantly leftist websites as source (as you
routinely do, and expect me to read that drivel), but you
don't think it's okay for me to do the same in reverse? Why
do you have one standard for yourself, and an entirely
different one for me?
docufo
2017-07-27 05:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
OH BULLSHIT! As much as I and other liberals frowned on the airport
tarmac get-together of Lynch and Bill Clinton, as mostly being an action
of foolhardiness, of impropriety, any "secret meeting" would certainly
not have been scheduled at a busy international airport.
They were in a private part of the airport, away from the
"busy" part of the airport.
Their itineraries were already known in advance, junior. It wouldn't
matter if they'd parked in a hangar, reporters would've been aware of
both of them. Between the airport personnel (some as informants) and the
gaggle of trailing reporters, it'd been hard for their two planes to
have landed and linked up without their knowledge. Much, much easier,
surreptitious ways to meet than that, obviously.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
It was a matter of coincidence,
How do you know? Why was Bill Clinton there? If you know,
explain it right here. Of course you won't, you never have
a response when I challenge you.
Simply because the itineraries were already known in advance by the news
media. The two were either aware of the overlap or not. In either case,
it was a coincidence. Not a "secret meeting" that was slyly planned. The
medias' track the news makers. That's what they do, junior. They're
bloodhounds in constant search for the big story! LOL! Sheesh. Here, to
calm you down, let me inform you as to why Billy was there (quote):

Bill Clinton arrived in Phoenix Monday afternoon and attended a Latino
leadership roundtable and a political fundraiser hosted by prominent
real estate developer and businessman Jim Pederson.
Pederson confirmed the fundraiser and Clinton visit. “It went very
well,” said Pederson, the chairman of Phoenix-based Pederson Group.
Pederson is one of the state’s top Democrats and a longtime friend of
Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Clinton also met with Hispanic leaders in Phoenix.
John Gomez, deputy chief of staff to Maricopa County Supervisor Steve
Gallardo, posted a picture on Twitter with Bill Clinton of that event.
Gomez said U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., former Congressman Ed
Pastor, Gallardo and former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox were at
the meetings.
Arizona could be in play this November with Hispanics heavily opposed to
Donald Trump’s immigration plans.
Trump also needs to improve his standing with women voters, and his
stances on trade turn off business types.
Bill Clinton met with Lynch at Sky Harbor Monday evening.
She was in Phoenix for a Tuesday stop as part of a community policing tour.
The private airport meeting was first reported by KNXV-TV ABC 15 and
it’s caused questions for the Clinton and Lynch over the integrity of
the email investigation.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/07/01/why-bill-clinton-was-in-phoenix-before-airport.html
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and it offered an impromptu opportunity for the two good
pals, family friends for a long time, to chat for 30 minutes. If they'd
wanted anything "secret" it'd be reasonable to assume they'd not be
using the airport.
Actually, they should have conducted the meeting in a more
public place. Then everyone would have known what they
talked about, and there would be no controversy.
They'd not planned it, that's likely why. An unexpected schedule overlap
likely surprised both. But then it was foolish considering Hillary was
under a DOJ investigation, via the FBI. Reports that Clinton knew she'd
be there and waited for the meeting are merely right-wing speculation.
Produce one corroborative credible source that says Bill was waiting for
Lynch. It's merely unconfirmed. Therefore, using some rationality which
you Trumpers appear to have forsaken, it would be highly unlikely that
the two would've been able to have a "secret meeting." And certainly
having their planes grouped together at a private area is not uncommon
for dignitaries and other notables as a matter of security.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The news media tracks their flights, arrival and departure, constantly.
It would be rare for any reporter, local or networked, to not be there
for an a photo-op, a brief interview, a shout out, etc.
But there were no national media there, and the meeting
took place inside an airplane, away from public view.
The "national media", junior, are always around via their numerous
affiliates locally. Meetings take place via Skype and other electronic
means in much easier, more secured, more confidentially than any
physical meeting location.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even airport to
plane conversations are monitored in some cases. It was a hot potato
election, junior, and the media were swarming all over the travel
itineraries of any significant player in the show.
Then why didn't the national media know about the meeting?
Why did it take a local reporter to find out about it and
report it before the national media even knew about it?
No, he didn't find out about it directly himself. He had either an
informant (airport personnel) or another news agency reporter or just
simply a friend give him the tip or scoop. Both sources remain unnamed.
He wasn't there at the airport. He put his byline on the story, but as I
said, ABC for some reason delayed release of the story, despite its hot
implications. That would probably indicate some kind of "conflict" going
on locally or from their national administration. That is the part of
the story that was quite ignored by the mass media. A part that smells
like political bias running smack into the "public's right to know"
principle of journalism.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
It's absurd to suggest that Clinton and/or AG Lynch had planned a
"secret meeting" at a very busy airport.
They almost got away with it, didn't they?
If they'd intended for it to be a "secret meeting", but it was more
likely a coincidence compounded by a foolish mutual decision, not
thinking of the shady surface of it, the negative "optics." Certainly,
the two have less knowable (as their itineraries were), more secure,
private ways to link up.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The reporters were around at the airport because the FBI security team
instructed them not to use their cell phones and cameras to record
Lynch.
Why is that? Why the secrecy?
Post by docufo
How many reporters were there is open to speculation, but in such
a hot election, you can be assured that more than one was there. They
already knew of Lynch's speaking engagement, arrival date and time.
If there were reporters there, why didn't they report the
meeting rather than waiting for the story to be broken by
a local reporter? Is that because the national media are
a bunch of partisan hacks who work hand-in-hand with the
Democratic Party?
The reporters, at least informants, were likely there. It is likely they
weren't reporters, though, reporting it but informants working at the
airport. Any reporters there might've not known about the link up, but
knew their planes' schedules had overlapped. It is likely the sighting
came from an airport personnel member or it's possible some local cop
pal phoned or messaged it in.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Lynch later apologized for the poor "optics" of the impromptu meeting,
saying it was a lack of judgement on her part. But she failed to mention
it was also the same for Bill Clinton. A foolish meeting by two dopes
that was not arranged, and certainly not intended as a "secret meeting."
But they almost got away with it.
Got away with a coincidental poorly thought out meeting on the tarmac,
you mean? LOL! That's all it was, junior. I railed against the
foolhardiness, the lack of respect for propriety and justice, the lack
of responsibility by Lynch and Clinton - and that was very likely what
it all was about. That was a shamefully foolish thing for both of them
to do. Both well experienced, and because of that fact, they'd not want
to have a "secret meeting" with the FBI telling the media not to record
Lynch, positioned plane near plane on one of the busiest airports in the
nation during a hot potato election year.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
You've been misled by right-wing nuts' sites. You might not know that
the local ABC affiliate reporter that broke the story, who wasn't at the
airport, got his info from two unnamed sources,
I wonder why the unnamed sources went to him, while the national
media knew nothing about it?
The "national media" has as its eyes and ears locally, the numerous
affiliates that are governed by a national administration overall, but
local administrations most often follow, by the letter, what the main
administration's protocol is. Any good intrepid reporter always has a
number of informants, tattlers if you will, operating with or without
compensation. The "national media" exists as a huge octopus of local
affiliates and therefore, technically, the "national media" more often
knows events from its affiliates first. There aren't "national media'
reporters, an army of 'em, permeating the society. If it weren't for the
affiliates, the "national media" would appear quite uninformed.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and waited until the
next day to report it. He sat on the story for a whole day for what some
believe was a decision by ABC execs to stall the release of it.
They wanted a chance to confront Lynch with the allegation
before reporting it.
Post by docufo
It is
likely the two unnamed sources were other reporters or airport employees
(informants).
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
You need to push your glazed eyes away from right-wing extremist sites
like The Blaze.com LOL!
Show where I have ever used The Blaze.com as a source. But
even if I did (which I haven't), why do you think it's okay
for you to use blatantly leftist websites as source (as you
routinely do, and expect me to read that drivel), but you
don't think it's okay for me to do the same in reverse? Why
do you have one standard for yourself, and an entirely
different one for me?
I gave TheBlaze.com simply as a common echo of the usual hard or extreme
rightist line, as one example. It is reflected not uncommonly on Fox
News, which dug into the depths of right-wing extremism with such idiots
as Glenn Beck.

There are countless right-wing extremist sites, as you well know. Fox
digs through them looking for stories, as do mainstream news leftists
that regularly mine their ideology's far and hard left sites.

The news biz today has infinitely more exposure and availability to
everyone, more flexibility, and definitely more persuasiveness visually.
It's evolved, or devolved, into incorporating the instantaneous
facilitation of human and natural events afforded by the internet, with
a sophisticated visual presentation, and with more acting out on-air
than anything imagined previously. Tuning in the "news" today really is
more an extension of the psychodrama and exploitation that once was
almost exclusively reserved for the typical fictionalizing by
screenwriters and directors.

^Y^
v
a***@yahoo.com
2017-07-27 06:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
affiliates, the "national media" would appear quite uninformed.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and waited until the
next day to report it. He sat on the story for a whole day for what some
believe was a decision by ABC execs to stall the release of it.
They wanted a chance to confront Lynch with the allegation
before reporting it.
Post by docufo
It is
likely the two unnamed sources were other reporters or airport employees
(informants).
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
You need to push your glazed eyes away from right-wing extremist sites
like The Blaze.com LOL!
Show where I have ever used The Blaze.com as a source. But
even if I did (which I haven't), why do you think it's okay
for you to use blatantly leftist websites as source (as you
routinely do, and expect me to read that drivel), but you
don't think it's okay for me to do the same in reverse? Why
do you have one standard for yourself, and an entirely
different one for me?
I gave TheBlaze.com simply as a common echo of the usual hard or extreme
rightist line, as one example. It is reflected not uncommonly on Fox
News, which dug into the depths of right-wing extremism with such idiots
as Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck. raping nigger liar was on #CNN for a long fucking time, that is Commyu nigga capitalist, murder inc, deep shyte nigger poopoo State.


Don Lemmon head fcker
Post by docufo
There are countless
u cease to stop your fucking filthy no bath nigger lies.
l***@optusnet.com.au
2017-07-27 06:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Just why are you so interested in trivia? like an old time housewife needing gossip just to get through the day, maybe you should invest in improving your rather lacking education maybe some travel would also help... Russia where you would be Putin's butt plug
@:)>
Steven Douglas
2017-07-27 17:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
OH BULLSHIT! As much as I and other liberals frowned on the airport
tarmac get-together of Lynch and Bill Clinton, as mostly being an action
of foolhardiness, of impropriety, any "secret meeting" would certainly
not have been scheduled at a busy international airport.
They were in a private part of the airport, away from the
"busy" part of the airport.
Their itineraries were already known in advance, junior. It wouldn't
matter if they'd parked in a hangar, reporters would've been aware of
both of them.
Then you're confirming that reporters knew about the meeting,
but did everything they could to cover it up by not reporting
it.
Post by docufo
Between the airport personnel (some as informants) and the
gaggle of trailing reporters, it'd been hard for their two planes to
have landed and linked up without their knowledge.
You're right. I'm convinced that the so-called "mainstream"
media knew about it, but they purposely covered it up to
protect their beloved Democrats. Just as they're working
to cover-up another breaking story that doesn't look good
for the Democrats right now. More on that later.
Post by docufo
Much, much easier,
surreptitious ways to meet than that, obviously.
Such as? What better place than a private part of an airport,
in the confines of an airplane with no reporters in sight?
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
It was a matter of coincidence,
How do you know? Why was Bill Clinton there? If you know,
explain it right here. Of course you won't, you never have
a response when I challenge you.
Simply because the itineraries were already known in advance by the news
media.
That's right -- and the news media did everything they could
to make sure the public would never know about it.
Post by docufo
The two were either aware of the overlap or not. In either case,
it was a coincidence. Not a "secret meeting" that was slyly planned. The
medias' track the news makers. That's what they do, junior. They're
bloodhounds in constant search for the big story!
There's a big story right now that they're trying their best
to NOT report. It has to do with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I
doubt you even know what I'm talking about, since you rely on
the same national media who didn't tell you about the airport
meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch.
Post by docufo
Here, to
Bill Clinton arrived in Phoenix Monday afternoon and attended a Latino
leadership roundtable and a political fundraiser hosted by prominent
real estate developer and businessman Jim Pederson.
Pederson confirmed the fundraiser and Clinton visit. “It went very
well,” said Pederson, the chairman of Phoenix-based Pederson Group.
Pederson is one of the state’s top Democrats and a longtime friend of
Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Clinton also met with Hispanic leaders in Phoenix.
John Gomez, deputy chief of staff to Maricopa County Supervisor Steve
Gallardo, posted a picture on Twitter with Bill Clinton of that event.
Gomez said U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., former Congressman Ed
Pastor, Gallardo and former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox were at
the meetings.
Arizona could be in play this November with Hispanics heavily opposed to
Donald Trump’s immigration plans.
Trump also needs to improve his standing with women voters, and his
stances on trade turn off business types.
Bill Clinton met with Lynch at Sky Harbor Monday evening.
She was in Phoenix for a Tuesday stop as part of a community policing tour.
The private airport meeting was first reported by KNXV-TV ABC 15 and
it’s caused questions for the Clinton and Lynch over the integrity of
the email investigation.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/07/01/why-bill-clinton-was-in-phoenix-before-airport.html
How embarrassing for the national media that the story was
first reported by a small-market local TV station, while
the national media remained in cover-up mode.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and it offered an impromptu opportunity for the two good
pals, family friends for a long time, to chat for 30 minutes. If they'd
wanted anything "secret" it'd be reasonable to assume they'd not be
using the airport.
Actually, they should have conducted the meeting in a more
public place. Then everyone would have known what they
talked about, and there would be no controversy.
They'd not planned it, that's likely why. An unexpected schedule overlap
likely surprised both. But then it was foolish considering Hillary was
under a DOJ investigation, via the FBI. Reports that Clinton knew she'd
be there and waited for the meeting are merely right-wing speculation.
Produce one corroborative credible source that says Bill was waiting for
Lynch. It's merely unconfirmed.
It's confirmed by the same sort of anonymous source that the
so-called "mainstream" media have been using to smear Trump
(you might remember James Comey testifying that the NY Times
and other media had some stories wrong that were based on
anonymous sources).

Anyway, this is just a distraction. The fact is that Bill
Clinton made sure he got on that plane with Lynch, and
she allowed it to happen. Despite your efforts do downplay
it, that meeting had some big repercussions:

Headline: "Comey cites Lynch-Clinton meeting for lost faith
in Justice investigation"

[excerpt]Last year's now-infamous airport tarmac meeting
between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former
President Bill Clinton was a crucial moment for FBI
Director James Comey, he said Wednesday, marking the
moment he decided that the Department of Justice was
not capable of an independent investigation into Hillary
Clinton.

"A number of things had gone on which I can't talk about
yet, that made me worry that the department leadership
could not credibly complete the investigation and decline
prosecution without grievous damage to the American
people's confidence in the justice system," Comey said,
testifying before the Senate judiciary committee.

"And then the capper was -- and I'm not picking on the
attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much --
but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane
was the capper for me, and I then said, you know what,
the department cannot, by itself, credibly end this,"
he added. [end excerpt]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/comey-loretta-lynch-clinton-tarmac-meeting/index.html

So as it turned out, this was not just the innocuous
little meeting you're pretending that it was.
Post by docufo
Therefore, using some rationality which
you Trumpers appear to have forsaken, it would be highly unlikely that
the two would've been able to have a "secret meeting."
But they did, and the so-called "mainstream" media did not
report it, despite your claim that they knew all about it
and covered it up.
Post by docufo
And certainly
having their planes grouped together at a private area is not uncommon
for dignitaries and other notables as a matter of security.
Of course, which is yet another reason they felt assured
they could get away with it. Fortunately, they were wrong.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The news media tracks their flights, arrival and departure, constantly.
It would be rare for any reporter, local or networked, to not be there
for an a photo-op, a brief interview, a shout out, etc.
But there were no national media there, and the meeting
took place inside an airplane, away from public view.
The "national media", junior, are always around via their numerous
affiliates locally.
That's a contradiction in terms. The national media are the
big networks, along with the major newspapers that have
bureaus all over the country and around the world. The
local reporter that first reported this works for a
small-market TV station that is owned by an independent
broadcasting company. That station is not owned by ABC,
despite your seeming belief that it is.
Post by docufo
Meetings take place via Skype and other electronic
means in much easier, more secured, more confidentially than any
physical meeting location.
You think Bill Clinton would have taken a chance of
broadcasting his attempt to influence the Attorney
General by putting it out over the internet, which
could be hacked? No, he knew the best way to do this
was to intercept Lynch right after she landed in
Phoenix, when he knew no reporters would be around
and he thought they could get away with it.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Even airport to
plane conversations are monitored in some cases. It was a hot potato
election, junior, and the media were swarming all over the travel
itineraries of any significant player in the show.
Then why didn't the national media know about the meeting?
Why did it take a local reporter to find out about it and
report it before the national media even knew about it?
No, he didn't find out about it directly himself. He had either an
informant (airport personnel) or another news agency reporter or just
simply a friend give him the tip or scoop. Both sources remain unnamed.
He wasn't there at the airport. He put his byline on the story, but as I
said, ABC for some reason delayed release of the story, despite its hot
implications.
ABC actually had no power to put a delay on it, since that
TV station is not owned by ABC. They are independently
owned and operated.
Post by docufo
That would probably indicate some kind of "conflict" going
on locally or from their national administration. That is the part of
the story that was quite ignored by the mass media. A part that smells
like political bias running smack into the "public's right to know"
principle of journalism.
I agree with that, since the big networks are holding down
a big breaking story right now, as they always do whenever
it involves Democrats getting caught in a bad situation.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
It's absurd to suggest that Clinton and/or AG Lynch had planned a
"secret meeting" at a very busy airport.
They almost got away with it, didn't they?
If they'd intended for it to be a "secret meeting", but it was more
likely a coincidence compounded by a foolish mutual decision, not
thinking of the shady surface of it, the negative "optics." Certainly,
the two have less knowable (as their itineraries were), more secure,
private ways to link up.
Such as? Give some examples. One thing they could have done
is have the meeting outside the airplane, in full view of
several people, and don't ban cameras and other recording
devices.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
The reporters were around at the airport because the FBI security team
instructed them not to use their cell phones and cameras to record
Lynch.
Why is that? Why the secrecy?
No response from you to that question. Did I stump you?
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
How many reporters were there is open to speculation, but in such
a hot election, you can be assured that more than one was there. They
already knew of Lynch's speaking engagement, arrival date and time.
If there were reporters there, why didn't they report the
meeting rather than waiting for the story to be broken by
a local reporter? Is that because the national media are
a bunch of partisan hacks who work hand-in-hand with the
Democratic Party?
The reporters, at least informants, were likely there. It is likely they
weren't reporters, though, reporting it but informants working at the
airport.
And they gave the info to a reporter they knew and trusted,
while the big network national media had no sources there,
which is what Bill Clinton was counting on when he walked
up to Lynch's plane for that secret meeting.
Post by docufo
Any reporters there might've not known about the link up, but
knew their planes' schedules had overlapped. It is likely the sighting
came from an airport personnel member or it's possible some local cop
pal phoned or messaged it in.
Yes, to a local reporter, while the so-called "mainstream"
media were either clueless or purposely covering it up.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Lynch later apologized for the poor "optics" of the impromptu meeting,
saying it was a lack of judgement on her part. But she failed to mention
it was also the same for Bill Clinton. A foolish meeting by two dopes
that was not arranged, and certainly not intended as a "secret meeting."
But they almost got away with it.
Got away with a coincidental poorly thought out meeting on the tarmac,
you mean?
Yes, they almost got away with it, if not for the local
reporter who got a tip, and blew the cover off the national
media's cover-up of that meeting.
Post by docufo
That's all it was, junior. I railed against the
foolhardiness, the lack of respect for propriety and justice, the lack
of responsibility by Lynch and Clinton - and that was very likely what
it all was about. That was a shamefully foolish thing for both of them
to do. Both well experienced, and because of that fact, they'd not want
to have a "secret meeting" with the FBI telling the media not to record
Lynch, positioned plane near plane on one of the busiest airports in the
nation during a hot potato election year.
It's amazing the way you can just sweep it all under the
rug, as if that meeting had none of the real consequences
that it had.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
You've been misled by right-wing nuts' sites. You might not know that
the local ABC affiliate reporter that broke the story, who wasn't at the
airport, got his info from two unnamed sources,
I wonder why the unnamed sources went to him, while the national
media knew nothing about it?
The "national media" has as its eyes and ears locally, the numerous
affiliates that are governed by a national administration overall,
Very few network affiliates are owned by the network with
which they affiliate. The local network affiliates in LA
are owned by the networks, but the ABC affiliate in your
area is not owned by ABC.
Post by docufo
but
local administrations most often follow, by the letter, what the main
administration's protocol is.
No, ABC News has no jurisdiction over the local reporting
by local reporters in Phoenix or Seattle. What you said is
true of LA, NY, Chicago, and a few other places where one
or more network affiliates are owned by the network, but
not Phoenix.
Post by docufo
Any good intrepid reporter always has a
number of informants, tattlers if you will, operating with or without
compensation. The "national media" exists as a huge octopus of local
affiliates
Wrong. The national media have their own bureaus in many
parts of the country. Washington DC, for example, has an
ABC bureau, but the local ABC affiliate is independently
owned and operated.
Post by docufo
and therefore, technically, the "national media" more often
knows events from its affiliates first. There aren't "national media'
reporters, an army of 'em, permeating the society. If it weren't for the
affiliates, the "national media" would appear quite uninformed.
That's why Bill Clinton thought he could get away with
that secret meeting in Phoenix, because he figured
there would be no national media there, so no one
would ever know that he was on Lynch's plane trying
to influence her decision about the investigation of
his wife.
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and waited until the
next day to report it. He sat on the story for a whole day for what some
believe was a decision by ABC execs to stall the release of it.
They wanted a chance to confront Lynch with the allegation
before reporting it.
Post by docufo
It is
likely the two unnamed sources were other reporters or airport employees
(informants).
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
You need to push your glazed eyes away from right-wing extremist sites
like The Blaze.com LOL!
Show where I have ever used The Blaze.com as a source. But
even if I did (which I haven't), why do you think it's okay
for you to use blatantly leftist websites as source (as you
routinely do, and expect me to read that drivel), but you
don't think it's okay for me to do the same in reverse? Why
do you have one standard for yourself, and an entirely
different one for me?
I gave TheBlaze.com simply as a common echo of the usual hard or extreme
rightist line, as one example.
You gave it as an example of things I should stop reading,
when I don't read it in the first place and have never
used it as a source. Stop attributing things to me that
I have never done or said (such as the numerous times
you have put words in quotation marks and attributed
the words to me, despite the fact I never wrote those
words.
Post by docufo
It is reflected not uncommonly on Fox
News, which dug into the depths of right-wing extremism with such idiots
as Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck left Fox News years and years ago, as many
Fox News viewers stopped watching and his ratings sank.
Post by docufo
There are countless right-wing extremist sites, as you well know.
There are countless left-wing extremist sites, and you
regularly use them as sources here. I go out of my way
to use real "mainstream" sources, yet you attribute to
me that I use the Blaze.com anyway. Why are you so
dishonest, Dishonest Doc?
a***@yahoo.com
2017-07-28 01:20:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:55:25 AM UTC-7, Steven Douglas wrote:
us support Retardians

#andrewbreitbart, #SethRich and #ChriCornell tied to same style murderers

#andrewbreitbart, #SethRich and #ChriCornell tied to same style murderers and three trolling tweets by #PodJ. Confirmed. read below. #arcmichael #bookoflife #revelations Ch. 12 going live.

interjection: we need to look also at Windsor, Rothschild, Soros, Romanov, Rockefellers inc, the secret Judeans at the House of Sauud, 100th anniversary to the Belfour agreement to create House of Frauud!

the cop on scene said he was probably interrogated and searched for computer stuff, non of his wallet or things were taken off his body, even his semi expensive wrist – watch. updated 07272017AD new Video online. Cops and Paramedics on scene Rich who was alive and responsive had no idea he had been shot, he was drugged out.

interject: Eric Schmidt. #Schmidt is a close personal friend and donor to Barack Obama. #Mueller was a partner at WilmerHale law firm. WilmerHale represented Civis Analytics during a major fundraising drive led by Schmidt that led to $22 million raised.

Podesta may have killed his own bastard son out of desperation . Two mistakes> First after he OK’s the murder of Seth Rich, he trolled #WikiLeaks dude. Then just before Chris Cornell’s beat down and head trauma to the head, and fake hanging, he trolled #DonaldTrump on #twitter. And then just days later his own bastard son was assassinated according to his wife, on twitter too, at Palas Verdes, CA. where Hillary had that meeting before the few days toward the end of my 12 days of assassination. She came to Buena Vista Library to personally eye me. Now we have a video with sound recognition software of a sounding John Podesta screaming at a child that he is his father and at the same time, perhaps engaged in molestation of that Child. Front man’s confession and search for his abuser just started in 2016, and John got word because he made a loan to this son from the Clinton Foundation. #boom! That investigation is too closed, no one is saying anything. The Park where Buena Vista is located on, in Burbank, near some of the Studios is called Lincoln Park.

Andrew James Breitbart: linked Drugged at Bar, died, just after posting a twitter meme to John Podesta;

Chris Cornell timeline, John is on vacay with wife, going to Utah when he trolls #DonaldTrump. Next Chris Cornell, Sound Garden Front man is beaten to a pulp, massive head wound, not in autopsy but did have 7 smashed ribs.
Link to Podesta is Seth Rich we learned was also Drugged at the Barr, wandered the streets until the early morning, found by Police gun shots in the back, and totally beaten to a pulp and Seth Rich was on drugs, he was conscious and did not know he was shot. Twitter during the election leaks DNCleaks 1,2 and John Podesta, just after a mysterious murder at DC of an unknown staff member who worked for Hillary Clinton and in the same building as Awan and his brothers ( being set up as the patsies to cover up John Podesta and the Deep Clinton State and Bush State) and Seth was given the passwords by Hillary Clinton because he worked for her and thus the entire CIA threatening over 11,000 affiliates and major media to never discuss Seth Rich, ever!
a***@yahoo.com
2017-07-26 05:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
For Impeachment, It Doesn’t Matter Whether Trump Broke The Law
I started the RINO DINO movement in 2006 up at the bay area, that became occupy, tea party and then these American Frist revolutions.

You two are still stuck on stupid, Partisan hacks.
Post by Steven Douglas
It also didn't matter that Bill Clinton did break the law.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton met with Loretta
Lynch in what was supposed to be a secret meeting, but lucky
for us, there was a local reporter on the scene doing the
job of the so-called "mainstream" national media, who were
somehow absent.
It doesn't seem to matter that Bill Clinton may have conspired
with Loretta Lynch to commit obstruction of justice while she
was the Attorney General of the United States.
It also doesn't seem to matter that Barack Obama knew about
Russia's attempts to interfere with our 2016 election, and
he did nothing about it.
There are many reasons to investigate Obama's administration
for the unmasking and leaks pertaining to private citizens,
whose identities should have been protected.
All of this will come out, whether or not the so-called
"mainstream" media want them to come out or not.
In the meantime, Republicans are trouncing Democrats in
fundraising, and I knew you'd ignore it. As I said, I'm
counting on leftists to be so preoccupied with their
fantasies about Trump, that they'll get trounced yet
again in another midterm election.
Thank you, radical kook leftists! You have no message,
other than your hatred of Trump. It's a losing message.
Mike
2017-07-26 14:57:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, 23 July 2017 22:12:42 UTC-7, Steven Douglas wrote:

I really feel sorry for you Steven.
Steven Douglas
2017-07-26 19:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
I really feel sorry for you Steven.
That's nice. I don't know why you would feel that way,
but thanks for your thoughts. I suppose I should give
you a second thought from time to time, just so it's
not so unbalanced (you know, with you being so overly
obsessed with me, while I never even think about you).
Mike
2017-07-26 19:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
I really feel sorry for you Steven.
That's nice. I don't know why you would feel that way,
Because you seem to be havinf a miserable existence just from the things you're posting. Even if it's a wild an animal, its my nature
to feel compassion at the thought that someone is suffering.
Post by Steven Douglas
but thanks for your thoughts. I suppose I should give
you a second thought from time to time, just so it's
not so unbalanced (you know, with you being so overly
obsessed with me, while I never even think about you).
If you 'never' think of me how did this post get here?
Was it magic? Or maybe maybe you have something
a little more serious.
Steven Douglas
2017-07-26 20:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
I really feel sorry for you Steven.
That's nice. I don't know why you would feel that way,
Because you seem to be havinf a miserable existence just
from the things you're posting.
Give an example. Just one, if you can think of one. Then
we'll go from there.
Post by Mike
Even if it's a wild an animal, its my nature
to feel compassion at the thought that someone is suffering.
I feel the same way. What makes you think I'm suffering?
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
but thanks for your thoughts. I suppose I should give
you a second thought from time to time, just so it's
not so unbalanced (you know, with you being so overly
obsessed with me, while I never even think about you).
If you 'never' think of me how did this post get here?
Well, it is a little difficult to ignore you when you're
constantly in my face. But you see, Mike, I'm not the one
who goes following you around the newsgroup, responding to
you within seconds whenever you post something.
Post by Mike
Was it magic? Or maybe maybe you have something
a little more serious.
Hmm, a guy who is completely obsessed with me thinks I have
something a little more serious. More serious than what?
Mike
2017-07-26 23:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
I really feel sorry for you Steven.
That's nice. I don't know why you would feel that way,
Because you seem to be havinf a miserable existence just
from the things you're posting.
Give an example. Just one, if you can think of one. Then
we'll go from there.
The comment above is as good an example as all your others.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Even if it's a wild an animal, its my nature
to feel compassion at the thought that someone is suffering.
I feel the same way. What makes you think I'm suffering?
Every sinner suffers Steven.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
but thanks for your thoughts. I suppose I should give
you a second thought from time to time, just so it's
not so unbalanced (you know, with you being so overly
obsessed with me, while I never even think about you).
If you 'never' think of me how did this post get here?
Well, it is a little difficult to ignore you when you're
constantly in my face.
I've never seen your face Steven. You are fantasizing
again.
Post by Steven Douglas
But you see, Mike, I'm not the one
who goes following you around the newsgroup, responding to
you within seconds whenever you post something.
How can I be 'following you around' unlike Facebook this
group doesn't have the option to 'follow'. You're just
fabricating as usual.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Was it magic? Or maybe maybe you have something
a little more serious.
Hmm, a guy who is completely obsessed with me thinks I have
something a little more serious. More serious than what?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...