From: Bill Vanek <>
Subject: Re: Julian Assange on The Memo
Full headers:
From: Bill Vanek <>
Subject: Re: Julian Assange on The Memo
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 16:32:00 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <p54g6a$kdg$> <> <p54phf$nq$> <> <JYqdC.26276$u94.14136@fx08.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="3754041d651c6e122442d8f4d21e98f5";
logging-data="26664"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NFW0113sRPleTiKh9CxinPQuP+K4nJXw="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6IhEfsQPrgqDnD+0Ri/Jf53BTwM=
Print Article
Forward Article
On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:46:00 -0800, Dutch<> wrote:

>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.

No need for me to ever watch CNN, then. It's all right here,
regurgitated by you.