Insider Claims Inside Knowledge on Clinton Investigation = "Entire Government is Treasonous"

nvm

I replace my post with this instead:

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Phantom423

Well, I've felt for quite some time that the level of government corruption in this country runs so deep it's incomprehensible, and all politicians have skeletons which other politicians use to leverage their getting away with whatever deceitful deed they wish. Once you start peeling back the layers of the onion all levels will be exposed...which is pretty much the same thing as the OP linked to from the inside.

No one has enough cover to fully be immune, hence no one wanting to rock the boat...they might be exposed themselves.

INDEED.

Let's suppose . . . for argument . . . that, as some have contended . . .

EVERY higher level male inducted into the upper ranks of power

has HAD to participate in a buggering of a toddler boy, followed by his literal murder-sacrifice to satan--all video recorded.

Which such politico . . . is going to step up and be the first fall guy and risk that video being "leaked?"

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Shamrock6

If she stored that information for her own reasons, and used it in such a way as that information was found out by enemies, that would be considered aiding or offering comfort to the enemies of the United States would it not?

They did plenty of that way back in their first term when they GAVE

secret nuclear missile tech to China. And got away with it Scott-free.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Do you disagree with his overarching message of "forget the emails and focus on the Foundation?"

That was the general gist of his post once you got past all of those items you mention; which were thrown in by the author specifically to give him the appearance of a loon.

Interesting that you focus on the latter and ignore the former.

Sorry it was a rather unfocused post based on my somewhat faulty memory. I do agree that the foundation needs to be further investigated, and it would probably not be pretty for most involved. I just thought it was interesting that he tied so many things in, almost like reading WND.

a reply to: TramperoJuan

Your bias.

The thread is about the desperate condition of the Republic

And the hopelessness of political corruption so rife in the land and globally.

It is a reasonable question to ask--where is the man/person to stand up and be counted against evil.

My reply was a reasonable one, given the concerns and topic.

Your knee-jerk aversion is not my concern.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Shamrock6

If she stored that information for her own reasons, and used it in such a way as that information was found out by enemies, that would be considered aiding or offering comfort to the enemies of the United States would it not?

I've lost track of how many times I've said it now: that's not the statement made by the "source" nor is it what I responded to.

To answer your question, though, that would depend on to whom the information was given. A more applicable charge would be under the Espionage Act. Bear in mind that spies in the last century have typically been charged under the Espionage Act as opposed to treason.

Hanssen - espionage.
Rosenburgs - espionage.
Ames - espionage.
Walker Ring - espionage.
And so on and so forth. And at least in the cases of Ames and Hanssen, they did direct, immediate damage to US agents and efforts in foreign countries. There's no implied damage, there's no damage through connecting dots, there's no helped some people make some money damage. They flat out caused the deaths of multiple people and destroyed entire networks of agents.


Even Lindh, who was outright fighting against the United States wasn't charged with treason. Treason is, by explicit design, a narrowly defined crime in the US.

originally posted by: boncho

7. Claims it proves the entire government is treasonous.

That's not possible.

It doesn't work that way.

It can't work that way.

The bad guys always need the good guys as "shields" for what they do.

To be effective, most of the government has to be made up with good guys, decent, honest people who are not corrupt.

These aren't the ones with the real power, however. To get any real power, you've got to taste a bit of the forbidden fruit.

Those in real positions of power, must have something on you, before they'll let you into the circle of power.

That "hold" is their protection, that you won't squeal on them, as you find out more "secrets" and get to know more about how things really work behind the scenes.

Corrupt people never call their activity corruption, treason, or any such thing. These are simply "smart deals" made among "wise folks".

But, one thing is certainly true, there is never a single person doing all the corruption just by himself or herself. That situation is also false. Although, it's usually only a single "patsy" that takes the fall, to satisfy the public.

So, corruption may be prominent, but only among those whose paths seem to be magically cleared of all obstacles to advancement, and not generally throughout the rank and file, who are just doing their jobs.


Welcome to America,

The only place on earth where there are

corporations to big to fail,

and

politicians too corrupt to jail.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: boncho


Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

I don't care for all the hyperbole mixed in there. "Entire" means entire, not specific people within a huge entity.

And no, simply seeing classified material one is not read in on is not treason. Unless one is working with a definition of treason other than the actual criminal act of treason. "Above top secret" information or not.

Why are you focusing on semantics? He is clearly not implacating your mailman. Use a little common sense, please.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

The goal (of Soros, since I assume that is what you are asking) is to create a global government where all people intermingle and breed and become on people ruled by a racially pure Jewish race. They sincerely believe under their rule all human conflict will cease because there will be no more cause for division. This desire is born out of a fear of the horrors of WWII. The Holocaust is a lie, but the death toll was still massive nonetheless. And many people were brutalized by it.

That quote is from the guy supposedly leaking all that information. It's from the 2nd AMA page. It really kind of undermines him in my opinion.

Under your bolded portion he acknowledged massive deaths occurred.

Later he mentioned that public records of the time dont match the numbers declared. Someone grilled him in the second thread.

Im curious to where you can find such records.

b

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: boncho


Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

I don't care for all the hyperbole mixed in there. "Entire" means entire, not specific people within a huge entity.

And no, simply seeing classified material one is not read in on is not treason. Unless one is working with a definition of treason other than the actual criminal act of treason. "Above top secret" information or not.

Why are you focusing on semantics? He is clearly not implacating your mailman. Use a little common sense, please.

Agreed. Not possible for the pedantic, who focus on obscure points to obfuscate the issue. Filling up the thread with irrelevancies simply serves to throw off the thread. "The government" refers to "those guys who run the place." It doesn't mean every part-time janitor who polishes the floors. If you insist on including them so you can point out the "impossibility" of "the entire government" being involved, then you are not getting it. You're not understanding the issue. I suspect it's willful so that you can pretend to have something relevant to say. You don't.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: boncho


Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

I don't care for all the hyperbole mixed in there. "Entire" means entire, not specific people within a huge entity.

And no, simply seeing classified material one is not read in on is not treason. Unless one is working with a definition of treason other than the actual criminal act of treason. "Above top secret" information or not.

Why are you focusing on semantics? He is clearly not implacating your mailman. Use a little common sense, please.

Why are you focusing on my semantics? I didn't think he meant my mail carrier, hence the hyperbole. But when somebody says "the entire of" something, I presume they mean the entirety. Not specific people within a massive machine.

Use of common sense indeed.

ETA - you and the other member may also take note that I thanked the member I was replying to for the clarification and dropped the matter. Hardly seems that I was that focused on it, now doesn't it? Unless we're lumping the debate over treason in there, in which case yea, I like clarification on things like that. Since we're discussing alleged criminal activity on the part of Hilary, establishing a correct definition of treason seems germane to me. But I suppose we can pretend that everybody isn't using the term treason in that they want her charged with treason, and are simply using it as an easier way of saying she's broken the public trust.

*eyeroll*

a reply to: BubbaJoe

...almost like reading WND.

I'll reiterate my question from earlier.

Has anyone seen this being discussed outside this thread? I guess I'm being lazy and could go look myself...

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's not like your arguments aren't valid, it's just that you have several posts that offer nothing to the discussion aside from providing distractions.

Does it really matter if someone chooses to say treason versus espionage? Does it really make a difference if someone says the entire government is guilty of the same? No. The point stands, whether republican or democrat if you are to succeed you must sell your soul.

Oh...I guess I must clarify for you. When I say "sell your soul" It's meant figuratively. I had to add that because I didn't want to see another 10 posts looking for clarification on your confusion.

The point isn't really lost on anyone else.

I believe virtually everything I read by anonymous "insiders" on sketchy websites and I'm voting for Trump. Did I mention I'm an idiot.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

A great and signal noisy place, to toss wrenches, IMO. Chaos is a thing. I bet the pattern recognition bots are just about useless in there. And practically anyone on there, is at least a potential tipping point.

originally posted by: kazanoom
I believe virtually everything I read by anonymous "insiders" on sketchy websites and I'm voting for Trump. Did I mention I'm an idiot.

Didn't have to. It was evidenced in your trolling post. Nothing to do w trump.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. Bears repeating.

originally posted by: schuyler
Agreed. Not possible for the pedantic, who focus on obscure points to obfuscate the issue. Filling up the thread with irrelevancies simply serves to throw off the thread. "The government" refers to "those guys who run the place." It doesn't mean every part-time janitor who polishes the floors. If you insist on including them so you can point out the "impossibility" of "the entire government" being involved, then you are not getting it. You're not understanding the issue. I suspect it's willful so that you can pretend to have something relevant to say. You don't.

BTW, I've been wondering . . .

is it plausible . . . realistic . . .

Assuming for a moment for argument . . .

That he threw a bunch of true things out there . . . mixed with some slightly safety enhancing obfuscating stuff . . .

That he threw a bunch of true things out there in a way that other bulldog sorts of researchers or true patriots could follow-up on with more tenacity and safety and maybe end up verifying them to more a more useful degree?

a reply to: thenightisours

Think Rodney Dangerfield in Back To School.....schooling the prof on business practices.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

reddit has a thread going

It's a mixed bag. I did want to drop one link to something that was mentioned in the OP

Red Team Planner

Back to looking around to see what's out there.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think that a proper definition of the law regarding "treason" is a worthy issue.

I do get weary of folks who like to split hairs in prissy ways for shallow reasons. I don't have any specific members in mind, at the moment. It does occur hereon overly often, imho. Usually by folks who have an RAD fostered DESPERATE NEED to be 100% right 100% of the time in all contexts against all other posters. Sigh.