TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XV-

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

More on CNN colluding with the FBI regarding Roger Stone.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: PokeyJoe

It is the same info as the other article. They both link to the same gatewaypundit story.

Metadata of when a digital file was created really doesn't show when it was sent and who knows how long the indictment had been unsealed, probably more than a couple hours before the arrest.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: PokeyJoe

It is the same info as the other article. They both link to the same gatewaypundit story.

Metadata of when a digital file was created really doesn't show when it was sent and who knows how long the indictment had been unsealed, probably more than a couple hours before the arrest.

That doesn't change the fact that CNN received what was clearly a draft copy of the indictment, not the official document that is currently on file. (There is no Pacer filing number or official court stamp.) They could only possibly have obtained this via a leak, and the metadata strongly implicates Andrew Weisman or someone with access to his computer.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

OK, so please...enlighten me with the major differences. They're both investigating Donald Trump colluding with Russia to help him win the 2016 election, correct? Is there something else that I'm missing here?

Let's hope we are all missing something here else we are wasting mucho monies.

You know i can not answer the differences in the investigations until reports are out.

The special counsel is said to have super powers.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Timing matters. Even a draft copy isn't a leak after it has been unsealed.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

WOW EMN!!!! Nice work! So maybe we were on to something at the very beginning - something physically buried on one of these vacant lot, and/or shady business at the Bates Motel shown in your pics. Also, Maxine listing slightly incorrect addresses on her disclosure forms is no accident. She knows exactly what shes doing. Its so that if someone just goes looking for these addresses they will find nothing out of the ordinary, and if someone does call her out on the B.S. she can just say "Oh, I'm getting old, just made an honest mistake there." and everyone will accept it and move on.

I think we're just scratching the very surface on this stuff....

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You cannot list any differences because their are no differences. Their mandate is exactly the same - Donald Trump and his campaign colluding with Russia to tip the 2016 election in Trumps favor. Thats it, the whole shebang. Anything else is just fluff.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

More on CNN colluding with the FBI regarding Roger Stone.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Sounds like grasping at straws. In other words it has no bearing on stone or his crimes if any but only makes us question more links between cnn and the gov..

Let's be real clear about this though so far both the articles and such have tried to put forth the thought that someone gave the documents and they were part of muellers crew. That is unproven and there could be many sources for such other than people involved in the investigation.

Maybe it was some guys with flashlights? Janitor? Covert op designed to undermine mueller?

I mean there are many possibilities.



ps Maybe trump hired the russians to get assange to hack mueller?

a reply to: daskakik

Please. Why would CNN get a draft copy of the indictment if the real thing was available? For that matter, HOW would they get this, except by a leak?

Face it: the preponderance of evidence clearly suggests they were tipped off, and someone on the Special Council, likely Andrew Weisman, send them the draft copy. Per the metadata, the draft copy has last been modified on Jan. 23rd, so it was likely sent to CNN a day or 2 before Stone's arrest.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

No, the date of the last modification doesn't mean it was sent when it was last modified.

I'm not saying they were not tipped off. I'm saying that if the indictment was unsealed but not uploaded to PACER then sending the draft copy wasn't a leak of a sealed document.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You cannot list any differences because their are no differences. Their mandate is exactly the same - Donald Trump and his campaign colluding with Russia to tip the 2016 election in Trumps favor. Thats it, the whole shebang. Anything else is just fluff.

Their mandate? That's funny cause we are way past legal mandates. That ship sailed long ago with the fruit of a poisoned tree. Since when has congress or the senate concerned with applying mandates to their activities? Not nearly enough.

Mueller has special powers else he is worthless.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

In January Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to the FBI asking them to explain the overall raid heavy-handedness and why CNN was there an hour ahead of time. The FBI had till February 5th to respond. As far as I can tell , they never did.

cannon fodder...



folks hashing it out

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

In January Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to the FBI asking them to explain the overall raid heavy-handedness and why CNN was there an hour ahead of time. The FBI had till February 5th to respond. As far as I can tell , they never did.

They had just cause because of previous threats made by stone. The comments could have been taken either way but threat of death was involved.






Question of the day............If you have 29 armed thugs at your door would you want a news crew there or not?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

We will know the truth fairly soon I hope.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Ruth Bader Blackout

True Pundit is reporting that there is a media blackout on RBG's condition.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been missing from the Supreme Court for over a month and now we find out that the premiere news networks in the country have been told to keep any and all Intel related to Ginsburg’s health out of the news.

Media contacts at ABC News and the Washington Post report that Ginsburg health stories have been put on a no-fly list by editors. And at least one FOX News journalist privately asserts that the network is not interested in a Ginsburg Watch feature either.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Fascinating. Ruth Ginsburg's husband Martin would be 86 years old if he were alive today. He passed at age 78.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It looks like even TMZ and other Paparazzi like Publications are participating in the news blackout.

That explains why when you do a search on Ruth Ginsburg articles over the past week, aside from Forum discussions, all you see are fluff stories related to her movie and life experiences.

First wee aneon Revolt on hidden FBI files.

gab.com...

Then all you diggers see the 210 page RICO complaint filed on June 2018 vs. Clinton et al.

www.scribd.com...