Jimmy Fallon has some fun with Trump's recent statement, "Other than the blonde hair when I was growing up, they said I looked like Elvis."
I love the discovery of a new rhyme for "orange," but you have to say "orange" like it's French:
And here's "Assange, Manafort Deny Report They Met. The White House Declined To Address It" (NPR)(quoting a Wikileaks tweet, "Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange").
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৮০টি মন্তব্য:
Julian,
Don’t let your mouth write a check that your ass can’t cash.
-MPH
of course, when Assange was on team snowden, this twit was all in:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/28/manafort-assange-drama-proves-media-will-buy-any-russia-conspiracy-story-no-matter-its-flaws/
Let's never forget that what was released were actual e-mails and communications of bad behavior, faith, and collusion at the highest levels of the democratic party reflecting the actions of very long term leaders and representatives of said party.
At the same time the party was led by someone who actively obscured her e-mail history through illegal acts (remember the FBI cleared her on "intent", not legality).
The fact this has pivoted to a narrative of whether Russia hacked those e-mails, whether they supplied them to wikileaks, and whether wikileaks coordinated their release with representatives of Trump....
That narrative pivot is freaking amazing. I WISH I could do that in my professional life. Bravo politicians bravo.
its called the journolist, it expanded into the rizzotto tray list, the Iranian echo chamber is another offshoot, that's malley icp, cirinciones plowshares,
About the only publisher that I trust is Wikileaks. Because they don’t make shit up. They release the actual documents they have and let the people decide. If they say they’ve never met with Manaforr, I believed them until proof is offered otherwise. The Grauniad, otoh, is a despicable lying publication.
From a financial perspective, it's obviously worth it to The Guardian to print what is, at best, a questionable allegation (and that's probably being generous). Any story involving anyting to do with Trump and Wikileaks and the leaked emails is instant money I guess, even if it ultimately proves false. Plus it stokes the rapidly cooling embers of the collusion narrative, so it will please all the right people. Win-Win.
harding, according to folks in the now, is tied to orbis and fusion gps, is he a source or a fountain of their data,
the whole thing ties to this other fraud:
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs/
it's like the Cyprus audio recording in the middle of the second season of 24
Since Assange knows the facts, I don't think that he is too worried about being proven wrong. Just because a Trump hater and Hillary rump swab wants something to be true, it doesn't make it so. -tiv
What the hell is Wikileaks gonna do with an editor's head? Mount it like a trophy over the fireplace?
The UK press doesn't require a second source confirmation, just a whispered rumor.
I was reading thru some of the "news" reports on the alleged meeting with Manafort and Assange. Near the bottom it noted that the Ecuadorian Embassy keeps track of visitors with a visitor log (right - of course) and the visitor log does not show a visit from Manafort.
yeah - best to mention that last.
All of this butt hurt is about true stuff that came out about Hillary, don't forget.
Declined to address a negative. A warlock, perhaps a baby, not worthy.
The press continues to demonstrate that it has lost all professionalism.
You want the proof The Guardian knows the story is false? Just explore the editorial changes made on-line after the story first broke. They have already retreated to the position that the story may or may not be true. And, of course, the sources are anonymous.
It is all but certain someone played them like a fiddle, and this is me granting that the authors didn't just make the entire thing up out of whole cloth- something I am increasingly unwilling to do these days.
Indeed, Tim.
True stuff about Hillary cannot be known. Wasserman was the wealthy guardian of the keep. shhhh. oh well, Wasserman has a few homes where she can retire.
Why can't we have a Mueller investigation on this:
"The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."
Leftists working on behalf of the HIllary-Lost-Eternal-Butthurt campaign - can lie all they want.
Lies for the liars.
Get your tickets! I know Ashely Judd is going. You too can listen to the money grubber and the rapist yammer on about the good ole' days and how Hillary was cheated out of her presidential library. oh well, at least they pocketed the international graft while they could. Private Servers Pay.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Why can't we have a Mueller investigation on this..."In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."
Rosenstein put the fix in with his appointment of Mueller with a ready-made excuse to avert his eyes.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Plus! Teh hack press, in unison, created an new amendment to the Constitution that says:
Thou shalt not go after a RIVAL if thy RIVAL is Hillary Clinton. *parrot*
the evidence of fraud,
https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1706143/diff/0/1
yes William campbell, who risked his life to penetrate uranium one, is an unperson,
carter page, reveals it was journal reporter, damian paletta who filtered the unverified claims to chuck ross, then at the daily caller,
Can either side definitively prove their claim?
Sure doesn't seem like it. Lack of a paper trail for Manafort only proves that he didnt sign his own name on the visitor log.
Jerome Corsi is essentially a journalist.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller sure is expending a lot of effort and power to persecute journalist Corsi for speculating and reporting about when Wikileaks might release Hillary Clinton's e-mails.
It's a good thing that the journalists in the Main-Stream Media will jump to Corsi's defense against Mueller's persecution of him.
My, my... all the stealth changes to the Guardian piece. Looks like Wikileaks placing the editor's head on the table had some effect on the quality of journalism.
very droll, mike Sylvester.
Even by the terms of the story in the Guardian, Manafort met with Assange multiple times years before Trump had even announced.
Why? What possible reason could Manafort & Assange have to meet with each other? Even if Manafort was in the pay of the Russians, why would someone as publicly visible & constrained in movement as Assange be his contact/handler? I mean Wikileaks publishes all its stuff. It's not like you have to be On The Inside to get the down-low.
Would it surprise me that there were moles for foreign intelligence services in the campaigns of each & every candidate for President back to at least 1932? No, absolutely not. Could Manafort have been a Russian asset? Possibly, just like anyone else could have been. But, Manafort with Assange? Makes no sense.
The FBI has been tracking all of Paul Manafort's travels for many years.
The FBI found that Manafort had traveled to London a few times and guessed that he traveled to London in order to visit Assange.
Why else would Manafort travel to London? The only explanation was that he went there to visit Assange.
This is the same gang of FBI counter-intelligence geniuses who guessed that the Michael Cohen who visited Prague in June 2016 was the same Michael Cohen who was Donald Trump's lawyer.
All the Main-Stream Media journalists, in professional solidarity, jumped to the defense of journalist Jim Acosta.
That's why we can expect all of them likewise to jump to the defense of journalist Jerome Corsi.
robother said...
What the hell is Wikileaks gonna do with an editor's head? Mount it like a trophy over the fireplace?
They could give it to Melania to use in decorating the White House
robother said...
What the hell is Wikileaks gonna do with an editor's head?
To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed his revenge
It has been pointed out that Julian Assange has been "a person of interest," quite intense "interest," for a long time, and his place of residence under observation at all hours by a number of agencies well equipped for such surveillance.
If Manafort had visited Assange, all the networks would have been provided with videos of the visit(s) long before now.
Mueller is 100% all in for Hillary. Nothing more.
Criminalize her loss.
Meanwhile - she's the real criminal.
Yes when he compromised diplomatic communications (manning) and signals intelligence(snowden) but the guardian was fine with that then
FED’s Powell just backed down and DOW is roaring again. Mueller is toast. It’s not nice to try a slow Coup D’tat and fail totally.
Mark said...
Lack of a paper trail for Manafort only proves that he didnt sign his own name on the visitor log.
I would think that the Ecuadorean Embassy pays a little more attention to such things than the local no-tell motel, and would be checking some form of ID. Of course, it is possible that the Ecuadoreans are intentionally participating in a cover-up. But, short of some evidence that they are doing so, it is fair to assume that the visitor log is accurate.
The Guardian has a reputation?
Other than as a kneejerk laughingstock?
Can either side definitively prove their claim?
The Ecuadoran embassy is one of the most monitored in London, by media for 24-hours per day. If Manafort went there to meet Assange, there would be video or photos. You and The Guardian need to prove the positive; we don't need to prove the negative.
By the way, even if he did meet Assange, since when is that against the law? Why are normal movements and associations suddenly criminal in nature just because they happen in Trump's orbit? Like DickinBimbos always says, the real crime was opposing Hillary, who apparently can do no wrong despite the evidence.
MPH said...
Julian,
Don’t let your mouth write a check that your ass can’t cash.
Assange knows whether or not he met with Manafort, and he can prove it. So I'm thinking his ass can cash this check no matter the amount.
And there ain't no rhyme for oranges.
Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse speculated that the false story about Manafort-Assange meetings was leaked purposefully to a single suspected leaker in order to catch that leaker leaking.
Lewandowski and bossie book suggests the sharepoint software makes tracking the leaker almost impossible, re speeches.
Julian Assange published some e-mails sent within the Democratic National Committee.
The Washington Post published the transcripts of President Trump's telephone conversations with the Presidents of Mexico and Australia.
The only apparent reason for the latter publication was to demonstrate publicly the Deep State's ability to resist and undermine Trump's Presidency.
The Dems and their rich elitist benefactors (the Davos crowd, as Steve Bannon calls them) are still butt-hurt over Wikileaks' publishing all those DNC and Podesta e-mails that may have politically hurt Hillary, and may have helped Trump win the election in 2016.
Two words come to mind: Tough shit.
Three more words come to mind: Get. Over. It
The First Amendment allows you publish stolen shit -- even classified shit -- for political purposes. We covered this ground 50 years ago. (See, Ellsberg, Papers, Pentagon).
The sainted Stevie Spielberg recently made a movie about this, The Post, with Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. It was quite good. Go watch it. The media at its finest. Publishing all sorts of good secrets. It was quite enlightening to see what the DNC was up to. Thanks Wikileaks!
As someone on this site remarked a few days ago, its beginning to smell a lot like Fitzmas.
Another dark corner of the swamp that Trump is shining light on: the use of prosecutorial power of plea bargaining to induce people to "cooperate" i.e., sign on to whatever perjury the Special Prosecutor needs to make his case against the big fish. (Maybe a lawyer more experienced in the criminal law than I can tell us if prosecutors enjoy immunity against suborning perjury in these cases.)
I assume Scooter Libby's real crime was refusing to cooperate by lying to incriminate Dick Cheney. So much for the real Fitzmas.
There was dodgy behavior going all the way back eickenrode did the initial interviews he decided who was lying libby and Rove yes, Mitchell russert and Gregory no.
Mueller was eickenrodes supervisor, fitz was waiting in the wings, Comey called him up,
Elvis had fair hair, at least as a youngster, but dyed it black to look like Tony Curtis.
I'm pretty sure I know what Trump's true hair color is, and it's neither blond nor orange.
Goldsmith at olc was committing legal malpractice re interrogator, wray in the eurassian division would volunteer to mutiny.
I could swear I saw something about a "Paul Manaford" entered in the embassy book here this morning..
What happened with that?
Courageous work by Fallon.
Mark said...
Can either side definitively prove their claim?
Sure doesn't seem like it. Lack of a paper trail for Manafort only proves that he didnt sign his own name on the visitor log.
****************
You won't find my name on that visitor's log, either. Does that "prove" that I too didn't use my own name, or does it "prove" that I was never there at all?
Snort.
It doesn't make sense for Manafort to have been there in 2013 or even 2015, anyways they leaked the answers to muellers questions.
“I assume Scooter Libby's real crime was refusing to cooperate by lying to incriminate Dick Cheney. So much for the real Fitzmas.”
The thing that he was officially convicted of was telling the FBI that he didn’t remember something, and they were able to convince a jury that he should have remembered it. That was the lying to the FBI thAt he was convicted of. Notably, Crooked Hillary apparently couldn’t remember a whole bunch of things when she was interviewed by the FBI. She couldn’t remember the basics of handling classified documents, despite having had a top secret security clearance for at least most of the previous two decades. Despite being one of the five primary classifiers in the federal government when she was Sec of State. Despite having sworn under penalty of perjury probably over at a dozen times over that any years that she did. The FBI agents (including Peter Strzok) who interviewed her knew that she was lying through her teeth. They laughed about it. Libby at least had a credible reason why he didn’t remember what he was supposed to have remembered. Clinton? No chance. The difference? She was running for President as a Democrat at the time.
Except eickenrode lost the transcripts of the notes, strzok and ptezienza (sic) were the one who interviewed general Flynn, the former in the guise of a briefing, they thought he didn't lie.
What’s interesting here is that Mueller’s rabid Dem prosecutors are trying to walk away from the plea deal that they have with Manafort, because he “lied” to them. Not sure what about. Was it this, the supposed Assange meeting? Or something else. He of course denies it. They get to keep his guilty plea, but get to ask the judge for a harsher sentence that they had agreed to with him. My thoughts are that they get to pull this shit once, and after that, won’t get anyone to agree to a plea deal. Which says to me that they probably know that they are on a short time fuse, and are starting to wind down.
It took how many years for hatfill to get his 5.5 million dollar apology as bureau chief he sat on the clemency requests for four of the men bulger framed, two died in prison.
Mueller based on his time as deputy us attorney in Boston. Could you have imagined I'f Ken Starr had pulled something like that.
What happened with that?
11/28/18, 1:32 PM
Ah, it was at npr. Not in the guest book but some other doc.
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
How are Uranium One and FISAgate any less directly related to the investigation than Manafort's tax evasion from 2011, or whatever he's been indicted for? As Bongino says, Mueller's entire raison d'etre is to get Trump impeached in order to cover up those scandals, not to investigate actual illegalities.
Like the other Michael Cohen who was in Prague in the fall of 2016?
The truth
witch hunt, joke, fraud - 1 million tax payer dollars per month.
Amazing the media and Mr. Mueller-Hillary are not interested in this:
The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former President Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.
@Mark bleated the following with an air of sweaty desperation:
Can either side definitively prove their claim?
Sure doesn't seem like it. Lack of a paper trail for Manafort only proves that he didnt sign his own name on the visitor log.
Either Mark doesn’t know that it’s a logical impossibility to demand that someone prove a negative assertion, or he knows it but intends to use it as an underhanded rhetorical device to persuade other rubes who don’t know it.
I first recognized this bad-faith, stupid style of debate from the far left all the way back in the days of Dan Rather’s forged military records regarding the younger George Bush. People with college degrees and no obviously missing chromosomes repeatedly argued with a straight face that we should assume the documents valid since “no one has proven they are fake!” Once you figure out this device and look for it, you’ll find it again and again in public discourse. The media hive buzzing around the Mueller investigation spits another one of these out every day or two.
Those like Mark who make this argument are evidently unacquainted with Occam’s Razor and too stupid to realize they’ve opened up whole new can of worms. In this case, if Manafort got himself into the Ecuadorian embassy in London, one of the most heavily surveilled sites on the planet, how did he do so without being recognized or stopped, and without being required to sign in with a valid ID? That’s a stretch and a half. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Manafort and Assange don’t have to prove jack-shit.
I'm sure the Guardian story is completely accurate, you just need to remember that their journalists live on another planet where everything happened differently.
as carter page, points out, it was damian paletta of lala land and first man (just kidding) who tipped him off to the story, allegedly about diveykin, before everybody else, this had to come from fusion,
oh never mind:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/feds-control-manafort-passports-would-bolster-deni/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
I though have visited gieves and hawes, or some of the other bespoke shops in ritzier london
They asked Scooter Libby who told him Mrs. Joseph C. Wilson IV and Valerie Plame at the CIA was the same person and he had a brain-freeze and told them "Tim Russert" when he should just have said he could not remember; by that time there were so many people talking about it.
On not having to prove a negative: Even if you do, you risk someone changing the accusations and demanding you disprove the new one too or claim it is awfully convenient you have that ready to go and the proving your innocence alone is circumstancial proof of your guilt.
Republicans want Assange to hang for publishing Bradley Manning's treasonous leaks during war time.
Democrats want Assange droned for publishing Seth Rich's stolen emails from Podesta for revealing the Satanic practice of Spirit Cooking.
Frankly I think it shows how devious Manfort is that all these investigators with all this time and all this money haven't been able to show he entered the embassy. It may be that a Stealth helicopter hovered over the Embassy and Manafort slid down a rope which is why there is no entry in the log book. And he won't admit it which would be a lie if it were true, and a separate crime. And he's embarrassing the Guardian, yet another separate crime. And there are other possibilities. It may be that Manafort was visiting the Kremlin disguised as Putin's mother. From there he was transported into the Ecuadorian embassy inside a matrushka doll. You see how devious the man is? How can Mueller cope? How can he issue his report if Shadowman Manafort keeps slipping through his fingers? I suggest a rather long report with "maybe" Trump did this and "if might be" Trump did that, and "coulda shoulda woulda" Trump did the other and numbered paragraphs refer to Appendix 47 as qualified by p. 42 line 17 - and leave it to the Press/Congress zombie jamboree, take the money and run.
Republicans want... Democrats want
A consensus of overlapping and converging interests. Democracy works.
Changing... convenient... circumstantial... guilt. Loony To... That's all folks.
The only way to fight this is to reframe the anonymous accusations by calling them for they are: lies.
As in "The Guardian lied today about Manafort meeting Julian Assagne."
It used to be that newspapers were careful about using anonymous sources. Now that they're using them to hurt people and poison public discussion, there needs to be a check against them.
This seems to be a standard part of Mueller's playbook, to leak damaging information about someone he's trying to intimidate when he doesn't have the goods. Ask Hatfill. (The other scientist committed suicide, allowing Mueller to clear the case without ever going to trial.)
Weissman seems to be a specialist in this sort of behavior.
I always wondered why the French are called frogs.
Manafort supposedly enters one of the most heavily watched buildings on earth not just once but three times to meet Assange? If Manafort had visited, the US, the UK, and every major intelligence agency in the world would know about it, and with a repeat visit, it would be a shock if he wasn't detained by at least one of them to ask just what he was doing.
Occam's Razor would suggest the Guardian is publishing fake news.
hello everyone, I am big fan of media news..I love to listen and read media news..
If you also want to follow more current media update then I recommend to visit here http://www.vaonlinenews.com/
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন