From: Dutch <>
Subject: Re: Julian Assange on The Memo
Full headers:
Subject: Re: Julian Assange on The Memo
References: <>
<p54g6a$kdg$> <>
<p54phf$nq$> <>
From: Dutch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <JYqdC.26276$u94.14136@fx08.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 22:46:01 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer -
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:46:00 -0800
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1979840647
X-Received-Bytes: 3097
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2/3/2018 11:53 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:55:11 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>> Bill Vanek<> wrote:
>>>> | ...
>>>> | This appears to be the second time (the first in the Oval
>>>> | Office with Russian officials) that Trump has handed the
>>>> | Russians classified material. If Trump is not a Russian
>>>> | agent, he surely is acting as effectively as one.
>>>> |
>>> I see you've become just another dishonest piece of shit, then. "Let's
>>> see what honest American conservatives are saying", huh? How about
>>> "let's see what one claimed conservative is saying? Would that be a
>>> bit more accurate? There might even be others, but I believe they are
>>> badly outnumbered by people who understand the seriousness of this
>>> matter.
>> I agree.  Treason by POTUS is a very, very serious matter.
> How about by the FBI? Nothing at all? Because they're on your side?
> What's it like to be a lemming?

That's too fucking rich. YOU'RE the lemming.

The FBI did nothing wrong. What would you have them do when they receive 
credible intelligence showing that a presidential candidate and his 
staff are potentially compromised by a hostile foreign government? Then 
they read the names and one of the individuals involved (Page) has been 
under investigation before for colluding with Russian spies, and others 
(Manafort, Gates) have dodgy ties to Russian entities and operatives. 
And yet another (Papadopolous) has been reported by a separate credible 
source for similar involvement. Then the more they investigate the more 
suspicious evidence surfaces.

When they see that the company that contracted for some of the 
information leads back to the DNC should they just ignore it all? Why 
would they do that?

Admit it, this is nothing but a smokescreen, it doesn't begin to pass 
the sniff test.