|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
|
An interesting new story on Seth Rich. I'm not sure if there's any big there there, but why was the email so heavily redacted?
The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich
Quote:
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.


the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 56 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: vinsue]
#26461385 - 01/31/20 02:02 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
vinsue said: https://theweek.com/speedreads/892768/senators-break-into-laughter-schiff-points-ironic-difference-between-trumps-legal-defense-doj-arguments President Trump's impeachment defense team seems to be on a different page than lawyers in the Department of Justice.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) noted this disparity while answering questions from senators in Trump's Senate impeachment trial on Thursday. Schiff said that while Trump's legal team argued the House should have gone to court to force witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify via subpoena, Justice Department lawyers were — nearly simultaneously — arguing in a separate case that it's up to Congress to enforce subpoenas through measures like... impeachment.
"You can't make this stuff up," said Schiff. As CNN reports, a DOJ lawyer on Thursday said if the House needs to enforce a subpoena, one of its options is to use its impeachment powers. As a reminder, Trump was impeached on obstruction of Congress after ordering aides to defy subpoenas that would have brought them to the House floor as witnesses. During the court hearing (related to the Trump administration's efforts to change the census, not an impeachment-related hearing), DOJ lawyer James Burnham argued the House can't ask the courts to enforce subpoenas — precisely what Trump's impeachment lawyers are suggesting Democrats should have done. Trump's legal team says Democrats should have fought in court for further witnesses, while Trump administration lawyers say courts have no right to enforce congressional subpoenas.
There were reportedly "audible gasps and laughs" on the Senate floor after Schiff pointed out the comedic timing of the opposing arguments.
. . . 
There was a Supreme Court case that ruled the courts have no role as a arbitrator between congress and the executive during an impeachment process. The constitution says the house and senate have the sole power of impeachment, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean they have total authority. A supoena issued by congress related to impeachment investigations or trials is not subject to judicial review.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
Quote:
The court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (01/31/20 02:04 AM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 56 minutes, 42 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: An interesting new story on Seth Rich. I'm not sure if there's any big there there, but why was the email so heavily redacted?
The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich
Quote:
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.


the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
You have any evidence the FBI believed Rich was a Wikileaks source? Assange never said that. He “suggested” it. The word suggested is underlined. Assange just finished saying they don’t reveal their sources, so naming Rich pretty much disqualifies him as a source. I think the FBI understood exactly what Assange was doing by naming Rich. It was a diversion. The FBI already had identified the hackers.
If rich was a Wikileaks source and Assange was suspicious about his murder, he should have contacted the FBI and told them what he knew. His cryptic and non specific statement during the interview was purely self serving. Come on. Use some common sense. If you are protecting the identity of sources, then you don’t throw their name out there as a suggestion.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (01/31/20 02:38 AM)
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 4 years, 25 days
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
feldman114 said: And I suspect we will never see signed statements - from anyone who is in power in Ukraine - saying Obama asked them to dig up dirt on Obama.
I put that in a full sentence in case you wanna make one of those signature bets I keep hearing about. I propose a 12-month waiting maximum, but will also accept 2 years.
Please clarify "from anyone who is in power in Ukraine". Does that include anyone who was in power during Obama's time in office?
If at least one signer has no corruption allegations, sure. But anyone who was fired for corruption will take any work they can find, especially signing a letter🤷🏻♂️ Sorry, but corrupt politicians have 0 credibility.
|
Just_A_Noob
Breathing



Registered: 12/30/16
Posts: 6,809
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: feldman114] 1
#26461752 - 01/31/20 08:32 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I bet witnesses get called. Even if it’s a tie
-------------------- Wearing a mask is bad for my physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Complying = Consent Wide Mouth 1/2 Pint No-Pour TEK TC Teks & Links
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: Just_A_Noob]
#26461757 - 01/31/20 08:35 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What's going on in the trial? I've lost track of it all. Work has been a bitch the last 30 or so hours.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: christopera]
#26461786 - 01/31/20 09:01 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
the repugnantkin might move to acquit today
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: feldman114]
#26461856 - 01/31/20 09:56 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feldman114 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Please clarify "from anyone who is in power in Ukraine". Does that include anyone who was in power during Obama's time in office?
If at least one signer has no corruption allegations, sure. But anyone who was fired for corruption will take any work they can find, especially signing a letter🤷🏻♂️ Sorry, but corrupt politicians have 0 credibility.
Once again, Giuliani said five people claimed they were asked to find dirt on Trump and Manafort, not that they were corrupt.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: koods]
#26461858 - 01/31/20 09:58 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: You have any evidence the FBI believed Rich was a Wikileaks source? Assange never said that. He “suggested” it. The word suggested is underlined. Assange just finished saying they don’t reveal their sources, so naming Rich pretty much disqualifies him as a source. I think the FBI understood exactly what Assange was doing by naming Rich. It was a diversion. The FBI already had identified the hackers.
If rich was a Wikileaks source and Assange was suspicious about his murder, he should have contacted the FBI and told them what he knew. His cryptic and non specific statement during the interview was purely self serving. Come on. Use some common sense. If you are protecting the identity of sources, then you don’t throw their name out there as a suggestion.
Once again, I'm NOT claiming Seth was murdered by the FBI, in fact I don't think he was. I'm just stating I find it odd that they don't seem to care much about investigating Seth Rich one way or another.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Seth Rich is dead. What would be the point of investigating a dead man? It's not like they can bring him to justice.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
verum subsequentis
seeker of truth



Registered: 03/22/16
Posts: 8,732
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: Enlil]
#26461883 - 01/31/20 10:18 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
To find out who killed him, how they did it and why they did it. To find out who orchestrated the hit. To find out who is aware of how and why it happened and is knowingly lying to the public, congress and the senate.
Murders of far less consequence are investigated all the time.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 4 years, 25 days
|
|
That wouldn’t be an investigation of Seth Rich though. As with any murder, his is being investigated, which is why we’re not hearing anything about it. Murder investigations are usually kept under wraps, are the not? Really asking cause I think I got that info from a TV show lol
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: Enlil]
#26461961 - 01/31/20 11:16 AM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Seth Rich is dead. What would be the point of investigating a dead man?
What's the point in determining whether Seth Rich leaked DNC emails as a high level FBI insider told Seymour Hersh?
Is that a serious question?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 2 days, 20 hours
|
|
Looks like the Republicans might not have enough votes to block Bolton's testimony: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-doesnt-have-enough-votes-to-block-witnesses/ar-BBZoXJf?ocid=spartanntp
We're back in the game Democrats!

But we only have 4 hours left......
Quote:
Following the period of questioning, the Senate will hold as much as four hours of debate on whether to subpoena witnesses or documents. If that hurdle is cleared, the Senate would then proceed to vote on whether to hear from Mr. Bolton, subpoena the notes he took during his tenure as national security adviser and gather other information or hear from other witnesses.
This is nail-biting
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 4 years, 25 days
|
|
Aw fuck, looks like there won’t be any witnesses after all
Quote:
LogicaL Chaos said: Looks like the Republicans might not have enough votes to block Bolton's testimony: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-doesnt-have-enough-votes-to-block-witnesses/ar-BBZoXJf?ocid=spartanntp
We're back in the game Democrats!

But we only have 4 hours left......
Quote:
Following the period of questioning, the Senate will hold as much as four hours of debate on whether to subpoena witnesses or documents. If that hurdle is cleared, the Senate would then proceed to vote on whether to hear from Mr. Bolton, subpoena the notes he took during his tenure as national security adviser and gather other information or hear from other witnesses.
This is nail-biting 
Old article, unfortunately. Murkowski will vote against
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 4 years, 25 days
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: feldman114]
#26462044 - 01/31/20 12:18 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: feldman114]
#26462053 - 01/31/20 12:22 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 4 years, 25 days
|
|
I’m doing this on my cracked phone so selecting text is a bitch. I’ll edit in an alternate source once others pick up the story.
Basically, Rudy “used to” represent the mayor of Kyiv and heavyweight champ Klichko. And he asked Zelensky not to fire him from the 2nd most powerful position in the capital (he was mayor AND head of city council). It should be noted that Zelensky did indeed fire Klichko from the council a week later. Still, Rudy’s services are obv for sale, including his access at the WH.
|
vinsue
Grand Old Fart



Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 17,953
Loc: The Garden State(NJ)
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: feldman114]
#26462077 - 01/31/20 12:32 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/jerry-nadler-misses-friday-impeachment-session-due-to-wifes-cancer-battle/
Quote:
Manhattan Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of the lead House impeachment managers, had to rush back to New York on Friday for a family emergency, meaning he will miss a key day in President Trump’s trial as senators prepare to vote on whether to call witnesses.
“I am sorry to not be able to stay in Washington for the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial but I need to be home with my wife at this time. We have many decisions to make as a family. I have every faith in my colleagues and hope the Senate will do what is right,” Nadler wrote on Twitter.
. . .
--------------------
"All mushrooms are edible; but some only once." Croatian proverb. BTW ... Have You Rated Ythans Mom Yet ?? ... ... HERE'S HOW ... (be nice) . ...
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Impeachment Hearings Chat [Re: vinsue]
#26462158 - 01/31/20 01:21 PM (4 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
vinsue said: https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/jerry-nadler-misses-friday-impeachment-session-due-to-wifes-cancer-battle/
Quote:
Manhattan Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of the lead House impeachment managers, had to rush back to New York on Friday for a family emergency, meaning he will miss a key day in President Trump’s trial as senators prepare to vote on whether to call witnesses.
“I am sorry to not be able to stay in Washington for the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial but I need to be home with my wife at this time. We have many decisions to make as a family. I have every faith in my colleagues and hope the Senate will do what is right,” Nadler wrote on Twitter.
. . . 
Karma is a bitch.
|
|