Visit Counter

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Trump Jr. Communicated With WikiLeaks Before Election

 Shakespeare's play Much Ado About Nothing comes to mind.

Let's compare and contrast.

 Bradley Manning, as he was know then, was an Army private convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the website WikiLeaks and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Barry saw fit to commute his sentence to 7 years. Think about it. If you're going to shave 28 years off a 35 year sentence one can only assume Barry deemed his offense was not that egregious. If you look at Donald Trump Jr's crimes communications with WikiLeaks his behavior was trivial in comparison. Furthermore, if he was involved in a Russian collusion plot or any other wrongdoing and he wanted to cover his tracks would he use direct messages on Twitter? Surely there must be a more stealthy line of communication.

Donald Trump Jr. secretly communicated with WikiLeaks leading up to the election last fall, according to a new report.

The organization published classified and/or leaked content on its website, including emails from the Democratic National Committee that painted Hillary Clinton and others in a bad light.

The Atlantic reported Monday that someone at WikiLeaks communicated with Trump Jr. on several occasions via direct messages on Twitter. The messages began last September and ended this July, although Trump Jr. stopped responding last October.

The first communication, according to The Atlantic, occurred Sept. 20, 2016.

"A PAC run anti-Trump site is about to launch. The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.' See 'About' for who is behind it. Any comments?" WikiLeaks wrote.

That website was started by tech entrepreneur Rob Glaser and was bankrolled by the Progress for USA Political Action Committee.

"Off the record, I don't know who that is, but I'll ask around. Thanks," Trump Jr. responded the following day.

In the months that followed, WikiLeaks would ask Trump Jr. for favors or provide information to him. Trump Jr. did not respond to every message, The Atlantic reported. Among WikiLeaks' requests were:
Asking for President Donald Trump's tax returns. Trump Jr. did not respond.
Asking that President Trump request WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be appointed Australian ambassador to the U.S. Trump Jr. did not respond.
Asking that President Trump tweet a link to WikiLeaks' trove of stolen and leaked documents. President Trump posted a tweet 15 minutes later that praised WikiLeaks (it did not contain the link). Trump Jr. tweeted out the link two days later.

Trump Jr.'s lawyers gave the Twitter messages to congressional investigators as they dig into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in any way.

Trump Jr. has come under fire for meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in the summer of 2016, a meeting that was set up on the premise of providing damaging information about Clinton to the Trump camp.


Friday, November 17, 2017

A Conversation with Loretta

 In a word Democrats.

This is Loretta:

"Instead of Operation Wetback Loretta we now have sanctuary cities."

Loretta, "What's that?" 

"That's where Democrats set up cities to protect people who come here illegally from being deported."

"Why would they do that?"

'So Democrats can get more votes."

"Why would true Americans vote for Democrats when they are destroying the country?"

"Loretta, that's the $64,000 question. It gets worse. We have to have more than two bathrooms now, the Civil War never happened, you're father may become your mother, we're $2o trillion in debt, and I'm not even going to tell you about 911."

"Loretta... Loretta...wake up......Loretta."



Two very similar stories two completely different outcomes

Woman drives this truck around Huston, TX.

"It's not to cause hate or animosity," the 46-year-old Fonseca told the Houston Chronicle. "It's just our freedom of speech and we're exercising it." 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas posted on Facebook that Fonseca's message is protected speech and urged her to reach out to the organization.

Now contrast the above story with this one:

A Georgia family is under fire for allowing a seventh grader to wear a T-shirt that mocked liberal news network CNN on a school field trip to CNN’s Atlanta headquarters -- but the boy's parents think the school violated the First Amendment by making their son take it off.

I like to think I have some morals, some fairness. Which case do you think is more egregious? Why isn't the outcomes the same?

BTW... The family is still waiting for the ACLU to intervene. I have a hunch it's gonna be a long wait.


Army to decide if Bergdahl is entitled to $300G back pay

I was wrong. I thought he already received the money.

Truly unbelievable. If this takes place it's is a slap in the face to every Vet not to mention... what example does this set!!!

Do the math. That's $50,000 grand for each soldier who died looking for this worthless waste of skin.


Bowe & Chelsea

Can Dancing With The Stars be far off?

The U.S. Army is set to decide whether Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl is entitled to as much as $300,000 in back pay and other benefits he amassed during his captivity with the Taliban.

Bergdahl, 31, was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after he walked off base while in Afghanistan. He was given a dishonorable discharge and he was demoted from sergeant to private in a court decision earlier this month but spared prison. President Trump called the ruling a “complete and total disgrace.”

Captive soldiers normally receive special compensation worth around $150,000 in addition to hostile-fire pay and their basic pay they accumulated during the captivity. But determining whether Bergdahl should receive the back pay is not as clear-cut.

The State Department marked Bergdahl in as “Missing-Captured” several days after he was captured and the terror group released a video featuring him alive, reported in 2014.

But Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion in court, complicating whether the army will consider him as a prisoner of war and thus entitled to back pay and compensation.

“My understanding is there has to be an administrative determination of his duty status at each point, from the time he was captured until now,” an army official told the Army Times. “In order to figure out what he’s owed, you’re basically going to have to start from that point of captivity.”

The official told the Times that it is possible Bergdahl will be given only his accumulated basic pay during his five-year captivity.

Bergdahl, however, might not be eligible for the basic back pay and could even owe money to the military. The Army could determine that he should not be paid for the time in captivity or that he was overpaid since his return to the U.S, according to the official who spoke with the Times.

“Based on the results of the trial, the Army is reviewing Sgt. Bergdahl’s pay and allowances,” Lt. Col. Randy Taylor told the Times. “His final pay and allowances will be determined in accordance with DoD policy and Army regulation.”


Thursday, November 16, 2017

Democrats who needn't worry about sexual advances

Even Viagra has its limitations.