USA - Criailleries 2 - Rumeurs, controverses, polémiques

[rendbo]

Il y a 17 heures, Wallaby a dit :

Imaginer Jésus faisant campagne pour les démocrates, c'est un blasphème, va hurler la droite religieuse.

Elle ferait mieux de relire ses évangiles la droite religieuse : Jésus était un fracking communiste (si il n'y avait pas le "rendez à César ce qui est à César, rendez...", j'aurais même dit qu'il était Communiste Révolutionnaire). Que certains puissants se soient appropriés les textes pour assoir leur pouvoir est un autre sujet

[Rob1]

Il y a 14 heures, prof.566 a dit :

A propos, les dames à qui Trump a "grabbed the pussy" ont elles la possibilité de porter plainte ou l'orang outang transgénique est il protégé par une immunité quelconque?

Ce n'est pas formalisé dans la loi, alors c'est assez complexe. La jurisprudence montre que le Président peut être poursuivi à titre personnel devant un tribunal fédéral (ce n'est pas les Républicains qui diront le contraire, cf. les poursuites de Paula Jones contre Bill Clinton), par contre c'est l'inconnu pour les tribunaux des cinquante Etats. Il y a une ancienne de l'émission télé du Donald qui a déposé plainte, les avocats de Trump prétendent évidemment que leur client a l'immunité, ou au minimum que ça ne pourra être jugé que quand il ne sera plus en fonction. Je ne sais pas où ça en est exactement.

[Tancrède]

1 hour ago, rendbo said:

Elle ferait mieux de relire ses évangiles la droite religieuse : Jésus était un fracking communiste (si il n'y avait pas le "rendez à César ce qui est à César, rendez...", j'aurais même dit qu'il était Communiste Révolutionnaire). Que certains puissants se soient appropriés les textes pour assoir leur pouvoir est un autre sujet

Il était même spécifiquement anti-américain, s'il faut en croire le serment sur la montagne: "on ne peut servir deux maîtres; Qui est le premier? Dieu ou l'argent?".... Pssss, shocking! Si la réponse évidente n'était pas "les deux", comment la devise des USA ""In God we trust" pourrait-elle figurer sur le dollar, et la politique être à vendre? Je vous le demande, mon bon monsieur. 

 

[kalligator]

Jésus était surtout anti-fric : prenez une concordance et recherchez dans les évangiles les mots  comme argent, or, ils sont le plus souvent présentée comme incompatible avec le christianisme

[Boule75]

il y a 9 minutes, kalligator a dit :

Jésus était surtout anti-fric : prenez une concordance et recherchez dans les évangiles les mots  comme argent, or, ils sont le plus souvent présentée comme incompatible avec le christianisme

On est pas dans le bon fil mais "incompatible" me semble inadapté. C'est la dévotion à l'argent, l'égoïsme, l'avidité, l'avarice, qui sont présentés comme fausse foi et fausse route, dans la ligne de la dévotion aux vaines idoles, pas tellement l'argent en tant que tel à mon sens.
Dans la même veine, et avec la même lecture, la référence à Jésus "communiste" n'a pas grand sens, pas si on englobe un certain niveau de dirigisme et de coercition dans le terme ; "socialiste" si vous voulez.

[kalligator]

Juste Boule75, c'est l'appat l'envie l'avarice etc qui est incompatible.

[rogue0]

Concernant le tsunami de révélations de harcèlement sexuel, et qui se demandaient "pourquoi maintenant" ? (argument repris par Roy Moore, pourquoi "40 ans après"):

Pour ceux qui en doutaient, voici ce qui arrivait avant à celles qui osaient briser la loi du silence, du moins dans la sphère politique.

Lauren Greene, la chargée de communication d'un élu du Texas (Farengold, peu importe le parti) avait osé porter plainte pour harcèlement contre son patron (après 5 ans à Washington)...
Mais c'était en 2014.

Elle est passée par la procédure de médiation (qui semble structurée pour décourager le maximum de plaignante : minimum de 90 jours de période de réflexion avant de porter plainte, etc https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/congress-sexual-harassment-slush-fund-255547).
Leurs avocats se sont mis d'accord sur un chèque (84 000$ d'argent public...)...

Et après, elle a été blacklistée, et n'a plus jamais réussi à travailler à Washington DC.

Depuis, elle travaille comme baby sitteuse à temps partiel en Caroline du Sud.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/04/blake-farenthold-sexual-harass-greene-278869

https://www.earnthenecklace.com/lauren-greene-wiki-everything-know-blake-farentholds-accuser/

Il y a 17 heures, prof.566 a dit :

A propos, les dames à qui Trump a "grabbed the pussy" ont elles la possibilité de porter plainte ou l'orang outang transgénique est il protégé par une immunité quelconque?

De façon plus réaliste, ces allégations de harcèlement sont sans doute déjà couvertes par la prescription.

Par contre, ses avocats prétendent aussi que l'accusation d'obstruction de justice (en virant Comey directeur du FBI) ne peut s'appliquer à POTUS Trump ...
Alors que les républicains prétendaient mordicus que POTUS Clinton en était lui coupable.
Faut vraiment qu'il vire ses avocats : s'il n'y avait pas de crime, pas besoin de parler d'immunité

 

On notera l'évolution du discours:

1. Aucun contact avec les russes
2. Des contacts très mineurs, mais c'est de l'adoption, aucune influence sur la campagne
3. (après les mails de Trump JR) : c'est de l'opposition research, tout le monde fait ça ... Et pas de collusion avec les russes!
4. (après Papodopoulos) : regardez par là, c'est Clinton et Mueller qui a fait de la collusion russe sur Uranium 1!
5. On s'en fout du procureur, on a l'immunité Nah!
   

 

[Kiriyama]

Il y a 21 heures, Tancrède a dit :

Il était même spécifiquement anti-américain, s'il faut en croire le serment sur la montagne: "on ne peut servir deux maîtres; Qui est le premier? Dieu ou l'argent?".... Pssss, shocking! Si la réponse évidente n'était pas "les deux", comment la devise des USA ""In God we trust" pourrait-elle figurer sur le dollar, et la politique être à vendre? Je vous le demande, mon bon monsieur. 

Est-ce que ça n'explique pas l'apparition des mormons : un christianisme qui fait bon ménage avec l'argent ? 

[Nicks]

Pas besoin d'aller dans le particularisme. Le protestantisme s'est toujours bien accommodé avec l'enrichissement personnel. De son côté le catholicisme lui s'est fort bien marié avec l'hypocrisie (je professe un certain égalitarisme mais je ne m'oublie pas quand j'appartiens aux sphères supérieures). Mais malgré tout sur le plan culturel, il y des similitudes géographiques entre les aires d'extension du libéralisme et du protestantisme.

[kalligator]

Pour la devise sur les billets américains il y a erreur sur la phrase, faut lire "in Gold whe trust"

[Tancrède]

1 hour ago, kalligator said:

Pour la devise sur les billets américains il y a erreur sur la phrase, faut lire "in Gold whe trust"

Damn right bitches! In Ari Gold we trust!

 

[Boule75]

Or donc Al Franken, sénateur Démocrate*, annonce qu'il va démissionner prochainement, sous la pression de ses camarades.

Pour une fois je suis d'accord avec Breitbart, dites donc :

Citation

St. Franken Martyr: Sacrificed to Attack Trump, Moore

Je préférerais avoir tort, mais m'est avis que ça ne fonctionnera ni contre Moore, ni contre Trump bien sûr : les Démocrates n'ont pas accès à la majeure partie de leurs électeurs.

 

* Quelqu'un sait s'il faut la majuscule quand "démocrate" est utilisé comme adjectif ?

[Tancrède]

16 minutes ago, Boule75 said:

 

* Quelqu'un sait s'il faut la majuscule quand "démocrate" est utilisé comme adjectif ?

Pas en français: techniquement, la majuscule pour un tel cas de figure est plus une particularité en anglais. Nos règles sont plus strictes. Ach! 

[Chronos]

il y a 23 minutes, Tancrède a dit :

Pas en français: techniquement, la majuscule pour un tel cas de figure est plus une particularité en anglais. Nos règles sont plus strictes. Ach! 

À ceci près qu'il y a adjectif et adjectif.

Dans le cas présent Démocrate fait référence à un parti politique particulier là où démocrate fera référence à un partisan de la démocratie, dont on n'espère que le Démocrate n'a pas le monopole... ou qu'il en est bien un...

Une telle distinction irait bien au parti Les Républicains d'ailleurs...

Ce genre d'orthographe ce rapproche de la technique contractuelle au fond, où l'on va définir un concept au départ d'un nom commun qui, dans son acception particulière et circonstanciée, acquerra une majuscule dans l'ensemble de la convention. Le même mot écrit avec un minuscule devra être compris dans son sens commun à l'exclusion du particulier.

Modifié le 7 décembre 2017 par Chronos

[Boule75]

@Tancrède et @Chronos : vous êtes les deux facettes de mon dilemme. L'Académie n'aide pas, je m'y emmêle les Palmes.

[Tancrède]

18 minutes ago, Chronos said:

À ceci près qu'il y a adjectif et adjectif.

Dans le cas présent Démocrate fait référence à un parti politique particulier là où démocrate fera référence à un partisan de la démocratie, dont on n'espère que le Démocrate n'a pas le monopole... ou qu'il en est bien un...

Une telle distinction irait bien au parti Les Républicains d'ailleurs...

Ce genre d'orthographe ce rapproche de la technique contractuelle au fond, où l'on va définir un concept au départ d'un nom commun qui, dans son acception particulière et circonstanciée, acquerra une majuscule dans l'ensemble de la convention. Le même mot écrit avec un minuscule devra être compris dans son sens commun à l'exclusion du particulier.

Et c'est là qu'est l'os: les Français ne parlent pas assez de la scène politique intérieure américaine pour avoir ses deux partis suffisamment implantés, identifiés et référencés dans le crâne à un niveau suffisant pour en faire une convention . On est vraiment trop gaulois! 

[Alexis]

Le 06/12/2017 à 14:25, Tancrède a dit :

Il était même spécifiquement anti-américain, s'il faut en croire le serment sur la montagne: "on ne peut servir deux maîtres; Qui est le premier? Dieu ou l'argent?".... Pssss, shocking! Si la réponse évidente n'était pas "les deux", comment la devise des USA ""In God we trust" pourrait-elle figurer sur le dollar, et la politique être à vendre? Je vous le demande, mon bon monsieur. 

Pire encore, il attaquait le petit commerce !

Agression d'honnêtes entrepreneurs créateurs de richesse par un terroriste du 1er siècle au nom de régulations désuètes

"Ne faites pas de la maison de mon Père une maison de traffic"

 

Enfin voici une autre conception de Mammon du Tout-Puissant, plus en accord avec la libre recherche du profit :

 

[rendbo]

Il y a 12 heures, Alexis a dit :

Agression d'honnêtes entrepreneurs créateurs de richesse par un terroriste du 1er siècle au nom de régulations désuètes

"Ne faites pas de la maison de mon Père une maison de traffic"

On peut aussi le voir comme un jeune entrepreneur dont la start up est bloquée par ce que certains économistes appellent les "marchés protégés" (ces marchés protégés par une patente et une licence, qui en profitent ensuite pour faire comme bon sans tenir compte des attentes des usagers) 

[rogue0]

Potus a toujours un problème.

Son gaffeur de fils.

Après son audition a la commission parlementaire sur "l'affaire russe" (où il a fait preuve de beaucoup d'amnésie), plusieurs fuites ont encore mis en difficulté sa défense.

Vu chez Corentin (fil twitter)

https://mobile.twitter.com/CorentinSellin/status/939128190559313920

---

Mes commentaires

1) "Quelqu'un" a envoyé par mail à Trump Junior le mot de passe vers un dump de Wikileaks pas encore public (rappel : celui avec la fuite sur les emails de Colin Powell critiquant les Clinton).
L'expéditeur est inconnu, et pour l'instant il n'y a aucune preuve qu'il ait regardé
(pour le super PAC anti Trump, oui le GOP s'est connecté sans autorisation à un système protégé -> cybercrime mais passons...)

Erreur de Corentin  :  Ledit dump a ensuite été publié par DCLeaks (pas wikileaks)  un proxy jetable, plus clairement russe (même type de false flag que Guccifer 2 et cie).
Donc, si ce n'est pas wikileaks qui a envoyé le mail, ca sent l'envoi de "russian dirt" directement en lettre recommandée AR.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/08/politics/email-effort-give-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

EDIT: apparemment CNN s'est fait avoir.
Leurs sources parlaient d'un email le 4 septembre (ce qui sous entendait une collusion).
Selon le WaPo, qui a vérifié directement sur le mail, ledit mail date du 14 septembre ... et l'information est déjà publique à ce moment (donc pas de collusion)
C'est une erreur, voire une fake news, mais bizarrement, l'intox provenait de sources multiples ( un coup de project Veritas?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/email-offering-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents-referred-to-information-already-public/2017/12/08/61dc2356-dc37-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.d45900199105

---

2) Contrairement à ses dénégations, il y a eu du suivi post-réunion après la réunion sur "les adoptions" de la Trump tower avec l'avocate russe (celle promettant du "dirt" sur Hillary).

Un assistant russe a ensuite proposé par mail :  Si vous êtres d'accord avec la proposition, répondre via un message anonyme sur un réseau social russe VK.
Ca ressemble fort a du tradecraft d'espionnage (communication par petites annonces de journaux).
La seule déviation, c'est qu'il est peu discret de demander l'envoi du message à un site russe...
Mais bon, toute l'affaire a des ficelles assez grosses.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/07/politics/previously-undisclosed-emails-after-trump-tower-meeting/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

A suivre....

Modifié le 8 décembre 2017 par rogue0
rétractation 1) fake news

[Wallaby]

Il y a 19 heures, Boule75 a dit :

L'Académie n'aide pas, je m'y emmêle les Palmes.

En revanche, on ne mettra pas de majuscule pour les adeptes d’une religion, d’une doctrine, les membres d’un parti, etc. : les chrétiens, les musulmans, les juifs, les bonapartistes, les communistes, etc.

[Boule75]

Pour bien mesurer ce qui est en train de se passer dans la sphère médiatique conservatrice (c'est comme une bulle, mais blindée et étanche) Fox News / Sean Hannity, mercredi dernier :

Citation

Also tonight, we have new big breaking information about the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s partisan, extremely biased, hyper-partisan attack team. We will going to name names tonight and explain exactly who these Trump hating investigators really are and why this entire witch-hunt needs to be shut down and shut down immediately. What is beyond clear tonight is that Robert Mueller has assembled the most partisan Special Counsel in history.

-> Ce soir également, nous avons de grandes révélations à propos de l'équipe de l'investigateur spécial [Special Counsel], Robert Mueller, son équipe d'attaque partisane et extrêmement biaisée. Nous avons l'intention de donner des noms ce soir, et d'expliquer qui sont vraiment ces enquêteurs haïssant Trump et pourquoi cette chasse-aux-sorcières toute entière doit être stoppée immédiatement. Ce qui est plus que clair ce soir est que Robert Mueller a rassemblé l'équipe d'investigation spéciale la plus partisane de l'histoire.

La transcription complète d'Hannity est là. Gardée ici pour mémoire, si ça vous intéresse. Ils descendent encore plus bas qu'en 2002-2003.

Révélation

But first, a special counsel of Robert Mueller's entire investigation we now know tonight is one giant cesspool. It's full of corruption, partisanship and unbridled bias. It is the epitome of the Washington, D.C. sewer and swamp. And Mueller stooges literally are doing everything within their power and then some to try and remove President Trump from office.

And tonight, we have new information about one of Robert Mueller's top attack dogs who has very deep ties to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Her name, we reveal, is Jeannie Rhee.

Now, there is a ton of information, pay very close attention. Records show she is a huge Democrat. And since 2008, Rhee has donated nearly $10,000 to Democrats. Now that includes contributions to Hillary Clinton in 2015, 2016. She also ditched out thousands of dollars to Barack Obama in '08 and 2011.

Now, it is not surprising because Rhee is a registered Democrat in Washington, D.C. Does that sound like a fair, impartial investigator? For all of you watching at home, I don't think so.

And it only gets worse from there. From 2009 to 2011, Rhee worked directly with former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. Yes, the same Eric Holder that proudly declared that he is part of the Donald Trump resistance.

And Rhee served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the DOJ where she advised Holder, the Obama White House and other top Justice Department officials on all sorts of legal matters. And take a look at this government document. Rhee is listed as the attorney for former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes when he was being interviewed about the Benghazi terror attack.

So clearly Rhee has deep ties to top Obama administration officials. Look at this press release from her old law firm WilmerHale. That's the same law firm Robert Mueller worked at. By the way, they mostly only donate to Democrats. It described Rhee as quote, "Having served as a legislative fellow in the office of former Senator Tom Daschle and as a counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice's office of legal policy." If you don't recall, Daschle was a Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats in the early 2000s.

Guess what? There is more. Jeannie Rhee also has done legal work for the Clinton Foundation. You can't make this up. In 2015, while at WillmerHale, Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against a racketeering lawsuit. And Rhee's name appears at the bottom of the plea agreement. Remember George Papadopoulos? The Trump foreign policy advisor that nobody ever heard off? Well, Rhee's background and resume, what does it prove? She is a total and complete partisan hack. Mueller had no business, like in a lot of the other people he selected, selecting her to be a part of his team, but he did it anyway, which should tell you all you need to know about the top type of operation Robert Mueller is running.

Next is one of Robert Mueller's top investigators who is known as the Special Counsel's pit bull and has a history of all kinds of unethical, highly questionable, strong-arm prosecutorial tactics. And of course I'm talking about Andrew Weissmann.

Now before we get into his past, we had breaking news last night that highlights Weissmann's political bias. In an email released by Judicial Watch yesterday, Weissmann told former acting Attorney General Sally Yates how prod proud he was to her. This after Yates denied a direct order from President Trump and refused to defend what we now know as constitutional, knew then the travel ban back in January. Here's the actual email. "I am so proud. I am in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."

Well, now that you know about Weissmann. well, let's dive into his past. Our friend, colleague, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett he has been going over this guy's record with a fine tooth comb. Guess what, Weissmann is a legal nightmare. Now, we have to know Weissmann has deep and close ties to both Mueller and the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. He has worked closely with both of them for years. And he has donated over $4,000 to Democrats like Barack Obama. So, there's no way he would have any political bias, I'm sure, right?

Well, this is the part that deeply is disturbing. When Weissmann was the top prosecutor, remember the Enron task force? Well, he secured a highly controversial obstruction of justice case against American accounting giant Arthur Anderson. It destroyed that company. It put tens of thousands of people out of work. It drove that company out of business. And in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Weissmann's conviction in an almost unprecedented nine-zero unanimous ruling. They excoriated him for his behavior.

And that's not the only example of Weissmann's hard charging, overly aggressive tactics. As part of the Enron investigation, Weissmann sent four Merrill Lynch executives to jail for as long as a year. Guess what? They were innocent. That conviction was also later overturned this time by the Fifth US Circuit of Appeals.

Here's the bottom line. Weissmann? Guess what? He is a legal tyrant. He has been accused of doing just about anything to secure a conviction. Does he not care about equal justice under the law? He has been accused of intimidating witnesses, making up crimes that do not even exist and even withholding evidence that would have been exculpatory and help the defense in one case.

And Weissmann is also directly tied to that corrupt Uranium One deal and the Obama administration's attempt to hide it from you, the American people. Weissmann? Guess what? He was in charge of the DOJ's fraud section during the Russian bribery scheme. And Gregg Jarrett pointed out that Weissmann's signature -- look there -- is at the bottom of the plea deal that was signed by the Russian businessman at the center of that case.

And also tonight, breaking information about the Trump-hating, Hillary-loving FBI agent Peter Strzok. He is the guy that was fired from Mueller's team for political bias towards President Trump. Another one of the dream team of Robert Mueller. Now the DOJ is reviewing 10,000 text messages that Strzok sent to his FBI official girlfriend Lisa Page. She also worked for Mueller. And what for? To determine which specific messages where Strzok was attacking President Trump. They need to be turned over to the House Intelligence Committee.

So, at this hour, it's unclear how many of the 10,000 messages have to do with President Trump or Mueller's investigation. It should be an interesting read. Now, the DOJ says this could take weeks or even months. Could we move a little faster? It's not that hard.

We are also learning tonight that Strzok's dirty and biased fingerprints, guess what, they are all over the fake news, anti-Trump, Russian propaganda dossier bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC that she was running. And according to a report, Strzok and his team, they were tasked with handling the dossier when it was given to the FBI. And, according to other reports, information that that fake news dossier was used to get a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Stop and think about this, Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian propaganda to influence an election. Sound familiar? And they might have used it to get a warrant to investigate an opposition party? A campaign? A president-elect?

This is insanity. Strzok is as biased as they come. And here are more reasons why.

According to a report, it was Strzok who signed the document that officially started the Russian collusion witch-hunt. Now, the Trump-hating FBI agent also oversaw the FBI interviews -- get this -- of former National Security Adviser Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. As we told you about last night, Strzok's mistress Lisa Page served on Robert Mueller's dream team before leaving.

Now here is where it gets really disturbing. As our own Catherine Herridge is reporting while Strzok played a pivotal role also in the Clinton email server investigation. You know the one where they actually had an exoneration letter before the investigation? And he even took part in the 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton herself. By the way, she was never put under oath. And we are also learning that Strzok participated in the FBI interviews of key Clinton aides and allies, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and we showed you last night how lies were told by both of them.

And here is the most egregious example of Strzok's rampant political bias. He is responsible for changing that crucial language in James Comey's statement that exonerated Hillary before they investigated. He is the one that revised grossly negligent to extremely careless which gave them an excuse to let Hillary walk.

Now, all of this is shocking, it's incomprehensible. It's smoking-gun proof that Mueller's probe is a total political sham. It's a witch-hunt, it needs to be shut down immediately if we believe in the rule of law and our Constitution.

But, guess what? The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as the Special Counsel, he is saying tonight he is satisfied with this investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, are you serious? You need to wake the hell up, get your head out of the sand and take a look at what is actually going on. This is about law and order and equal justice under the law.

Apparently Rosenstein is the only person apparently in America that doesn't seem to realize -- I guess unless you work at fake news CNN or conspiracy TV MSNBC, you seem to be the only one that doesn't realize there are very serious flaws with Mueller's investigation. This is exactly why we have been saying it's time for Rosenstein to pack his boxes, leave the Department of Justice, because this is an injustice.

Now Mueller's investigation is troubling. Democrats are using it to attack a dually elected president, the one you elected. And here is an example. Earlier today you have 58 geniuses in the House of Representatives, all Democrats, supporting a resolution to impeach President Trump. For what? The bias, the politics swirling around Mueller's investigation is beyond alarming at this point. It's been a year of this.

But, it's still of the much larger attack and it is all aimed at the President of the United States. And of course, it's being orchestrated by deep state operatives on Obama holdovers. Now, we have seen example after example of former Obama administration officials going after, attempting to discredit the president every day, day in, day out. Look at James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, now works at fake news CNN. He has repeatedly attacked President Trump. Here is one small example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CNN, AUG. 22)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you questioning his fitness?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DNI: Yes. I do. I really question his ability to -- his fitness to be in this office. And I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.

How much longer does the country have to borrow a phrase, endure this nightmare?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Pretty disgraceful and former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, more deep state. Well, he has made this shocking admission when testifying before Congress. Watch him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MAY 23)

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN: I want to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau so that they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involves U.S. persons, but I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: So, what Brennan did was do everything within his power to make sure that the FBI and the deep state were going after Trump and his campaign.

Now, after hearing statements like that, should we really be at all surprised that at the beginning of the Trump administration, remember, we had 125 deep state leaks in 126 states? Imagine this. When has it ever happened that a conversation with a sitting president and prime minister or president of another country was ever leaked? I can't think of a time.

And we can't forget that right before he left office, President Obama -- remember, we talked about this -- he signed executive order one, two, triple three, which made it easier to share intelligence so everybody across the government agencies had access. Why did he do it? Why didn't he do it during his term?

Now, there is also widespread unmasking of American citizens, including Trump associates. And at one point during the end of the Obama administration, former U.N. ambassador, remember Samantha Power? Why would she be unmasking people caught up incidentally in surveillance at the rate of one American a day? And then we have Ben Rhodes, former Obama deputy national security adviser, remember, talking about the Attorney Rhee? Remember him? He was a person of interest in the unmasking scandal.

So it appears what the Obama administration was, in fact, deliberate by unleashing this deep state power to strike against the incoming president before he even took office. And take a look at how former Ambassador John Bolton tonight is describing this mess that is going on in this country tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT"/FBN)

AMB. JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: As Wall Street Journal said, this is the first attempt of coup d'etat in American history --

LOU DOBBS, HOST: It's stupid!

BOLTON: I mean, it's a mini coup d'etat but it goes right along with the idea that they should have won the election --

DOBBS: -- the transfer of power is not minor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: You have to listen. This is not a game. What is happening in this country is dangerous and it needs to be stopped before the deep state can overthrow the president that you, the American people, voted for. A duly elected president. We will have more on that in a minute.

But first, also tonight, we have scandals continuing to engulf the Democratic Party all across the spectrum. Senator Al Franken, "Senator Groper," the one-time darling of the left, he is in deep political turmoil tonight. Two more women are now accusing that senator of misconduct, including a former Congressional aide who alleges that Franken tried to forcibly kiss her in 2006 after taping a radio show.

 

Il y a 1 heure, Wallaby a dit :

En revanche, on ne mettra pas de majuscule pour les adeptes d’une religion, d’une doctrine, les membres d’un parti, etc. : les chrétiens, les musulmans, les juifs, les bonapartistes, les communistes, etc.

L'inconvénient étant qu'alors, du fait de l'utilisation de termes génériques démocrates / républicains), on ne distinguera plus l'appartenance au parti de l'adjectif dans son acception initiale... Eh zut.

[Benoitleg]

Il y a 2 heures, Boule75 a dit :

Pour bien mesurer ce qui est en train de se passer dans la sphère médiatique conservatrice (c'est comme une bulle, mais blindée et étanche) Fox News / Sean Hannity, mercredi dernier :

La transcription complète d'Hannity est là. Gardée ici pour mémoire, si ça vous intéresse. Ils descendent encore plus bas qu'en 2002-2003.

  Révéler le texte masqué

But first, a special counsel of Robert Mueller's entire investigation we now know tonight is one giant cesspool. It's full of corruption, partisanship and unbridled bias. It is the epitome of the Washington, D.C. sewer and swamp. And Mueller stooges literally are doing everything within their power and then some to try and remove President Trump from office.

And tonight, we have new information about one of Robert Mueller's top attack dogs who has very deep ties to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Her name, we reveal, is Jeannie Rhee.

Now, there is a ton of information, pay very close attention. Records show she is a huge Democrat. And since 2008, Rhee has donated nearly $10,000 to Democrats. Now that includes contributions to Hillary Clinton in 2015, 2016. She also ditched out thousands of dollars to Barack Obama in '08 and 2011.

Now, it is not surprising because Rhee is a registered Democrat in Washington, D.C. Does that sound like a fair, impartial investigator? For all of you watching at home, I don't think so.

And it only gets worse from there. From 2009 to 2011, Rhee worked directly with former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. Yes, the same Eric Holder that proudly declared that he is part of the Donald Trump resistance.

And Rhee served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the DOJ where she advised Holder, the Obama White House and other top Justice Department officials on all sorts of legal matters. And take a look at this government document. Rhee is listed as the attorney for former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes when he was being interviewed about the Benghazi terror attack.

So clearly Rhee has deep ties to top Obama administration officials. Look at this press release from her old law firm WilmerHale. That's the same law firm Robert Mueller worked at. By the way, they mostly only donate to Democrats. It described Rhee as quote, "Having served as a legislative fellow in the office of former Senator Tom Daschle and as a counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice's office of legal policy." If you don't recall, Daschle was a Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats in the early 2000s.

Guess what? There is more. Jeannie Rhee also has done legal work for the Clinton Foundation. You can't make this up. In 2015, while at WillmerHale, Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against a racketeering lawsuit. And Rhee's name appears at the bottom of the plea agreement. Remember George Papadopoulos? The Trump foreign policy advisor that nobody ever heard off? Well, Rhee's background and resume, what does it prove? She is a total and complete partisan hack. Mueller had no business, like in a lot of the other people he selected, selecting her to be a part of his team, but he did it anyway, which should tell you all you need to know about the top type of operation Robert Mueller is running.

Next is one of Robert Mueller's top investigators who is known as the Special Counsel's pit bull and has a history of all kinds of unethical, highly questionable, strong-arm prosecutorial tactics. And of course I'm talking about Andrew Weissmann.

Now before we get into his past, we had breaking news last night that highlights Weissmann's political bias. In an email released by Judicial Watch yesterday, Weissmann told former acting Attorney General Sally Yates how prod proud he was to her. This after Yates denied a direct order from President Trump and refused to defend what we now know as constitutional, knew then the travel ban back in January. Here's the actual email. "I am so proud. I am in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects."

Well, now that you know about Weissmann. well, let's dive into his past. Our friend, colleague, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett he has been going over this guy's record with a fine tooth comb. Guess what, Weissmann is a legal nightmare. Now, we have to know Weissmann has deep and close ties to both Mueller and the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. He has worked closely with both of them for years. And he has donated over $4,000 to Democrats like Barack Obama. So, there's no way he would have any political bias, I'm sure, right?

Well, this is the part that deeply is disturbing. When Weissmann was the top prosecutor, remember the Enron task force? Well, he secured a highly controversial obstruction of justice case against American accounting giant Arthur Anderson. It destroyed that company. It put tens of thousands of people out of work. It drove that company out of business. And in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Weissmann's conviction in an almost unprecedented nine-zero unanimous ruling. They excoriated him for his behavior.

And that's not the only example of Weissmann's hard charging, overly aggressive tactics. As part of the Enron investigation, Weissmann sent four Merrill Lynch executives to jail for as long as a year. Guess what? They were innocent. That conviction was also later overturned this time by the Fifth US Circuit of Appeals.

Here's the bottom line. Weissmann? Guess what? He is a legal tyrant. He has been accused of doing just about anything to secure a conviction. Does he not care about equal justice under the law? He has been accused of intimidating witnesses, making up crimes that do not even exist and even withholding evidence that would have been exculpatory and help the defense in one case.

And Weissmann is also directly tied to that corrupt Uranium One deal and the Obama administration's attempt to hide it from you, the American people. Weissmann? Guess what? He was in charge of the DOJ's fraud section during the Russian bribery scheme. And Gregg Jarrett pointed out that Weissmann's signature -- look there -- is at the bottom of the plea deal that was signed by the Russian businessman at the center of that case.

And also tonight, breaking information about the Trump-hating, Hillary-loving FBI agent Peter Strzok. He is the guy that was fired from Mueller's team for political bias towards President Trump. Another one of the dream team of Robert Mueller. Now the DOJ is reviewing 10,000 text messages that Strzok sent to his FBI official girlfriend Lisa Page. She also worked for Mueller. And what for? To determine which specific messages where Strzok was attacking President Trump. They need to be turned over to the House Intelligence Committee.

So, at this hour, it's unclear how many of the 10,000 messages have to do with President Trump or Mueller's investigation. It should be an interesting read. Now, the DOJ says this could take weeks or even months. Could we move a little faster? It's not that hard.

We are also learning tonight that Strzok's dirty and biased fingerprints, guess what, they are all over the fake news, anti-Trump, Russian propaganda dossier bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC that she was running. And according to a report, Strzok and his team, they were tasked with handling the dossier when it was given to the FBI. And, according to other reports, information that that fake news dossier was used to get a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Stop and think about this, Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian propaganda to influence an election. Sound familiar? And they might have used it to get a warrant to investigate an opposition party? A campaign? A president-elect?

This is insanity. Strzok is as biased as they come. And here are more reasons why.

According to a report, it was Strzok who signed the document that officially started the Russian collusion witch-hunt. Now, the Trump-hating FBI agent also oversaw the FBI interviews -- get this -- of former National Security Adviser Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. As we told you about last night, Strzok's mistress Lisa Page served on Robert Mueller's dream team before leaving.

Now here is where it gets really disturbing. As our own Catherine Herridge is reporting while Strzok played a pivotal role also in the Clinton email server investigation. You know the one where they actually had an exoneration letter before the investigation? And he even took part in the 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton herself. By the way, she was never put under oath. And we are also learning that Strzok participated in the FBI interviews of key Clinton aides and allies, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and we showed you last night how lies were told by both of them.

And here is the most egregious example of Strzok's rampant political bias. He is responsible for changing that crucial language in James Comey's statement that exonerated Hillary before they investigated. He is the one that revised grossly negligent to extremely careless which gave them an excuse to let Hillary walk.

Now, all of this is shocking, it's incomprehensible. It's smoking-gun proof that Mueller's probe is a total political sham. It's a witch-hunt, it needs to be shut down immediately if we believe in the rule of law and our Constitution.

But, guess what? The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as the Special Counsel, he is saying tonight he is satisfied with this investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, are you serious? You need to wake the hell up, get your head out of the sand and take a look at what is actually going on. This is about law and order and equal justice under the law.

Apparently Rosenstein is the only person apparently in America that doesn't seem to realize -- I guess unless you work at fake news CNN or conspiracy TV MSNBC, you seem to be the only one that doesn't realize there are very serious flaws with Mueller's investigation. This is exactly why we have been saying it's time for Rosenstein to pack his boxes, leave the Department of Justice, because this is an injustice.

Now Mueller's investigation is troubling. Democrats are using it to attack a dually elected president, the one you elected. And here is an example. Earlier today you have 58 geniuses in the House of Representatives, all Democrats, supporting a resolution to impeach President Trump. For what? The bias, the politics swirling around Mueller's investigation is beyond alarming at this point. It's been a year of this.

But, it's still of the much larger attack and it is all aimed at the President of the United States. And of course, it's being orchestrated by deep state operatives on Obama holdovers. Now, we have seen example after example of former Obama administration officials going after, attempting to discredit the president every day, day in, day out. Look at James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, now works at fake news CNN. He has repeatedly attacked President Trump. Here is one small example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CNN, AUG. 22)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you questioning his fitness?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DNI: Yes. I do. I really question his ability to -- his fitness to be in this office. And I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.

How much longer does the country have to borrow a phrase, endure this nightmare?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Pretty disgraceful and former Obama CIA Director John Brennan, more deep state. Well, he has made this shocking admission when testifying before Congress. Watch him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MAY 23)

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN: I want to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau so that they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involves U.S. persons, but I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: So, what Brennan did was do everything within his power to make sure that the FBI and the deep state were going after Trump and his campaign.

Now, after hearing statements like that, should we really be at all surprised that at the beginning of the Trump administration, remember, we had 125 deep state leaks in 126 states? Imagine this. When has it ever happened that a conversation with a sitting president and prime minister or president of another country was ever leaked? I can't think of a time.

And we can't forget that right before he left office, President Obama -- remember, we talked about this -- he signed executive order one, two, triple three, which made it easier to share intelligence so everybody across the government agencies had access. Why did he do it? Why didn't he do it during his term?

Now, there is also widespread unmasking of American citizens, including Trump associates. And at one point during the end of the Obama administration, former U.N. ambassador, remember Samantha Power? Why would she be unmasking people caught up incidentally in surveillance at the rate of one American a day? And then we have Ben Rhodes, former Obama deputy national security adviser, remember, talking about the Attorney Rhee? Remember him? He was a person of interest in the unmasking scandal.

So it appears what the Obama administration was, in fact, deliberate by unleashing this deep state power to strike against the incoming president before he even took office. And take a look at how former Ambassador John Bolton tonight is describing this mess that is going on in this country tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT"/FBN)

AMB. JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: As Wall Street Journal said, this is the first attempt of coup d'etat in American history --

LOU DOBBS, HOST: It's stupid!

BOLTON: I mean, it's a mini coup d'etat but it goes right along with the idea that they should have won the election --

DOBBS: -- the transfer of power is not minor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: You have to listen. This is not a game. What is happening in this country is dangerous and it needs to be stopped before the deep state can overthrow the president that you, the American people, voted for. A duly elected president. We will have more on that in a minute.

But first, also tonight, we have scandals continuing to engulf the Democratic Party all across the spectrum. Senator Al Franken, "Senator Groper," the one-time darling of the left, he is in deep political turmoil tonight. Two more women are now accusing that senator of misconduct, including a former Congressional aide who alleges that Franken tried to forcibly kiss her in 2006 after taping a radio show.

 

Si on a de la fièvre, il vaut mieux casser le thermomètre ..

[hadriel]

Il y a 3 heures, Boule75 a dit :

La transcription complète d'Hannity est là. Gardée ici pour mémoire, si ça vous intéresse. Ils descendent encore plus bas qu'en 2002-2003.

Y'a-t-il un écrivain de contes pour enfants dans l'assistance, capable d'écrire une uchronie décrivant comment les US restent un pays stable? Avec ou sans licornes dans l'histoire?

[rogue0]

EDIT: apparemment CNN s'est fait avoir : l'histoire du mail secret vers le dump de wikileaks est une fake news.

Leurs sources parlaient d'un email le 4 septembre (info secrète à ce moment, ce qui sous entendait une collusion).

Selon le WaPo, qui a vérifié directement sur le mail, ledit mail date du 14 septembre ... et l'information est déjà publique à ce moment (donc pas de collusion)
C'est une erreur, voire une fake news, mais bizarrement, l'intox provenait de sources multiples ( un coup de projet Veritas?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/email-offering-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents-referred-to-information-already-public/2017/12/08/61dc2356-dc37-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.d45900199105

[Boule75]

Il y a 10 heures, hadriel a dit :

Y'a-t-il un écrivain de contes pour enfants dans l'assistance, capable d'écrire une uchronie décrivant comment les US restent un pays stable? Avec ou sans licornes dans l'histoire?

Et une campagne de presse coordonnée accompagne ce rant : j'ai vu des articles ou des "contributions" dans The Hill, dans le Wapo (et je n'ai pas été cherché plus loin) qui racontaient tous un peu la même chose, semaient le doute à tout va en fait : comme quoi certains avocats ou enquêteurs de l'équipe Mueller avaient déjà travaillé sur des affaires concernant Hillary Clinton (le retour des e-mails !), comme quoi ils avaient donné au parti démocrate ou à la campagne Clinton, etc... Les mêmes "contributions" n'examinent jamais des éléments contradictoires pourtant évidents : certains ont donné aux démocrates, mais combien ont-ils donné aux Républicains (ou aux verts) ? Certains ont travaillé sur les e-mails ou la Fondation de Clinton, mais ont-ils travaillé sur des affaires concernant les Républicains, ou sur d'autres affaires tout simplement dans le cadre de leurs mandats ? Vous ne le saurez pas. Etc...

Des correspondances privées sont exhumées d'on-ne-sait-où...

Notez, au milieu des incantations d'inquisiteur d'Hannity, le rappel des incendies en Californie, ou comment ramollir la partie rationnelle du cerveau en durcissant la partie haineuse, travail sur les associations... on rappelle les attributs des chasses aux sorcières (bûcher, quasi-magie noire complotiste...).