aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Is this just something alleged, or is it provable?

---

It is just alleged in a Federal Complaint. Not sworn evidence.

---

True, but that seems like too specific of an allegation to have been made up out of thin air. I would think they at least have a person making the claim that is what happened. It's huge if they can prove it.

---

It's Butowsky's version of events as to how he became involved with the Rich family and why.

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Is this just something alleged, or is it provable?

---

It is just alleged in a Federal Complaint. Not sworn evidence.

---

True, but that seems like too specific of an allegation to have been made up out of thin air. I would think they at least have a person making the claim that is what happened. It's huge if they can prove it.

---

It's Butowsky's version of events as to how he became involved with the Rich family and why.

---

So they do have someone making the claim. Paradigm shift if they can prove it.

---

CT75 said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Is this just something alleged, or is it provable?

---

It is just alleged in a Federal Complaint. Not sworn evidence.

---

True, but that seems like too specific of an allegation to have been made up out of thin air. I would think they at least have a person making the claim that is what happened. It's huge if they can prove it.

---

It's Butowsky's version of events as to how he became involved with the Rich family and why.

---

So they do have someone making the claim. Paradigm shift if they can prove it.

---

Seems to me even if they had video of the murder...it still wouldn't likely prove motive (assuming they used a hit man and by now have eliminated the hit man). Jack Ruby comes to mind.

---

CT75 said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

So they do have someone making the claim. Paradigm shift if they can prove it.

---

Seems to me even if they had video of the murder...it still wouldn't likely prove motive (assuming they used a hit man and by now have eliminated the hit man). Jack Ruby comes to mind.

---

fullback44 said:

---

So the Mueller team knew all along it wasn't Russians that it was Seth Rich and his brother who released the DNC emails to Wikileaks...


( for the Q followers... Q said this was the case over a year ago!)

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Agnzona said:

---

Where is the next Woodward & Bernstein, the Hollywood movie, or best selling book? It almost takes a conspiracy to believe how locked down and not the least bit curious the media is.

---

That was all about taking down a Republican president. They have no interest in sullying the name of Obama. Switch the D's and the R's and they'd be all over it.

---

fullback44 said:

---

So the Mueller team knew all along it wasn't Russians that it was Seth Rich and his brother who released the DNC emails to Wikileaks...


( for the Q followers... Q said this was the case over a year ago!)

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It's Butowsky's version of events as to how he became involved with the Rich family and why.

---

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It's Butowsky's version of events as to how he became involved with the Rich family and why.

---

I'm not there yet on Seth Rich ... no hard evidence.

Similarly, I'm also not there yet on the Russians hacking the DNC ... for exactly the same reason ... no hard evidence.

---

Quote:

---

But the Democratic Party committee that helps elects candidates to U.S. House seats has exposed scores of its own opposition research files on GOP candidates, past and present, on the internet. They just aren't easy to find.

Those Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) files aren't on web addresses tied to its official domain, https://dccc.org/.

Instead, the research files appear under such arcane URLs as http://2vmhfw1isbe32j3tgn3epw3x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/. To find these jewels, someone would have to know that cryptic address, or be willing to scroll through multiple screens of a Google search before it showed up.

Why is this the case?

The DCCC insists it isn't another hack, nor was it an accidental publishing of secret files that it didn't make a security mistake. Instead, a senior DCCC official told me it was "an intentional publishing of materials that aren't being publicized right now."

---

Quote:

---

In other words, the DCCC posted some of its most valuable opposition research in a way that isn't exactly accessible unless you know where to look.

"Sometimes we publish research and polling so it can be helpful," the official explained.

To Democratic candidates? I asked.

"Yes," but then the official immediately clarified: "We take our obligation to avoid improper coordination very seriously."

All this might sound like political gobbledygook to the average reader.

But actually it provides a window into how political parties craftily perform an end run around federal campaign laws that limit how much parties can contribute to support candidates directly. Those laws also outlaw coordination between candidates and their supporters.

---

Quote:

---

In other words, the DCCC or any other party's committees, for that matter could run afoul of federal campaign limits and coordination bans if it privately gave its expensive opposition research directly to candidates.

So the DCCC and some of its GOP counterparts have invented a workaround.

They publish opposition research reports they think can help their candidates on obscure web addresses, where their candidates can download them and most voters and Republican rivals are unlikely to see them.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

As to the DCCC hack, it seems more likely that it could be an inside job, to me.

---

Quote:

---

.....But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele's 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump's possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.
The over-under isn't flattering to Steele.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele's claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upwards of 90 percent of the dossier's claims to be either wrong, non-verifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.

In other words, it was mostly useless.

"The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn't be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele's intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims," one source told me.

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet......

---

drcrinum said:

---

Useless!

---

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Useless!

---

I've lost count of all the useless 'gotcha' accusations ... has anyone kept a list?

---

will25u said:

---

---

will25u said:

---

So essentially, Flynn was relying on his attorneys to know what to file and when. So shouldn't they be on the hook and not Flynn for having him do the wrong thing? They are supposed to be the SME on the filings. Flynn is not.

---

Secolobo said:

---

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

Reading your replys on Covington, Burlington, I wondered how, or where, culpability lies with partnerships, versus corporations and LLC's?

It's a sidebar question, but Flynn's attorneys are responsible, as is their firm in some degree. But, if Flynn chooses to suit that firm, who receives the brunt.

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Useless!

---

I've lost count of all the useless 'gotcha' accusations ... has anyone kept a list?

---

Maybe you should start a spreadsheet.

---