I think it is true.. or do you think it is a coincidence that both democrat pedos (((Jacob Schwartz))) and (((Anthony Weiner))) got caught under Trump and not under Obumma?
and there lies the problem... this immunity and non-disclosure is sickening. They want the public to fight for the politicians and go to war for them at the drop of a word, but apparently aren't fit enough to get the real truth from full disclosure of all issues.
That's the problem, the public aren't allowed any type of honest full disclosure, not only in the Weiner case, but all cases. They might declassify documents but even then censoring and deleting is a massive problem. This is wrong.
This promotes the problems we're seeing right now. The public want the truth and they aren't getting it. That's why this forum is in place, or didn't you put that together yet. Legal basis for disclosure? How about full transparency from officials with the purpose of preventing crime that is prevalent globally.
*note: the officials work for the public, the public don't work for the officials. It's all ass backwards to protect a criminal playground and that's exactly what's happening. .
You've been lied to about the Weiner laptop. The story was the NYPD got the laptop first and were on the verge of making arrests, then the FBI bigfooted them and demanded the case. The NYPD was worried the FBI wouldn't got after all these supposedly dozens of gutwrenching crimes, so they copied the evidence and if Comey didn't come through, they were going to leak all the evidence.
Well it didn't happen. The NYPD didn't leak all these supposed evidence of horrible crimes. It didn't happen because the story was a fake. The NYPD were not the ones who seized the laptop, the FBI was. The FBI HAS had possession of it all the way through.
The story I heard was that NYPD had access to the files. Regardless of who got there first, wouldn't NYPD have access to data on those files?
Are you saying the NYPD wasn't aware of anything on the files? If so, why wouldn't they come forward in a press meeting and clear it up? Did I blink and miss the meeting that clearly said they didn't know what was on the files?
Do you have mainstream media links and official link interviews to back this up? What would they have to lose by providing an honest explanation? What do they have to gain by not providing one?
What about the Clinton Files that weren't allowed disclosure. Are you also saying that is fake and there's nothing on those files either? If so, then why not provide disclosure? Why the secrecy?
If politicians and government workers would just give honest news reviews, instead of using the mainstream media as a fake propaganda machine, these stories wouldn't become as mixed up as they are.
The story I heard was that NYPD had access to the files.
Yes, this was the story. However, this story said that NYPD seized the laptop and that was not true. The story further said that the NYPD backed up the contents of the laptop before turning it over the FBI. There would be no legal basis for this. This story did not come from official sources. The truth is the FBI were the ones who seized the laptop.
Regardless of who got there first, wouldn't NYPD have access to data on those files?
No. This was a federal case and it was federal subpoena by the US Attorney who filed it. It was not the local Manhattan DA that deals with the NYPD and local cases.
Are you saying the NYPD wasn't aware of anything on the files? If so, why wouldn't they come forward in a press meeting and clear it up?
Because they never said they had them in the first place and this story was pushed on fake news sites on the web. The NYPD is not in the habit of responding to every fake story on the internet.
Do you have mainstream media links and official link interviews to back this up?
A few places have done a big deep-dive story into how the Comey letter came out.
Vanity Fair :The story broke in the Daily Mail on September 21, and the F.B.I. seized the laptop on October 3."
So we know who seized the laptop and when. The more telling detail is in both of these deeply reported stories, the NYPD is never mentioned at all.
What about the Clinton Files that weren't allowed disclosure.
I'm not sure what you are speaking of here. If you are referring to Hillary Clinton's personal emails, the policy of the State Department was in order to comply with the Federal Records Act, if a person used a personal email account, they would have to review their emails and turn over emails that were government records. There's no requirements for her to turn over her personal emails per State Department guidelines and was held up on Court when people sued to have them released.
When the State Department asked for her government emails, she tasked her lawyers with going through her account and determined what was a government record. They did this by a series of searches I believe. Some of the emails she turned over to the State Department were returned back to her because they were determined to not be a government record and did not require archiving. Some emails were missed. The FBI uncovered these through forensic means, but determined there was no effort at deception. (For example, they had been deleted years ago or their did not show up in search results.) The FBI determined they made a good faith effort in determining which was which. Compliance with the Federal Records Act does not result in a criminal investigation by the way.
Why the secrecy? Personal is personal. The bulk release of work emails is highly unusual as well. You can request certain emails through a Freedom of Information ACT request, but you can request " your whole Inbox and Outbox." It doesn't work that way. These were released because a judge ordered it. (Fun fact. Even if she used a state.gov account, she would not be in compliance with the Federal Records Act, because the State Department technology was so far behind the times, this was not automatically compatible with the archive software required for email. The tech now is, but they were just rolling that out during her tenure.)
You say that FBI was in charge of the investigation, not NYPD. That wouldn't be in keeping with regular protocol. An example of regular protocol click on link and scroll half way down:
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Schwartz case is a local case and never involved the FBI. The Weiner case was always a federal case. The local DA announced they wanted to look into it, but the feds got the subpoena first. Also the Weiner case crossed state lines as the 16 year old was in NC.
The norm you are pointing to doesn't apply at all.
I'll read the Daily Mail article you've provided. I actually like the Daily Mail and think it's one of the few, maybe only, rag that I somewhat trust.
Vanity Fair is questionable and I refuse to accept anything that comes out of NYT.
The problem being that news media is a propaganda machine that I can't trust or be sure of anything I hear.
You've said the NYPD isn't in the habit of replying to every fake story.
That's not an acceptable reason excuse. This is not just any fake story, it's a priority story, based on all the responses one would think they'd know that.
This does produce a massive problem.
It might be helpful if a political press release came out specifically addressing the wider issues due to Weiner/Abedin/Clinton connection.
The public has the right to know what their polticians are doing. The public is paying for them to maintain their society and work on their behalf. Their role should in no way fall under the ''personal'' information clause you've sighted. Instead of personal right of privacy they get full blown immunity.
They shouldn't get special immunity of any kind.
This is not just any small issue, it's a priority issue and shouldn't be treated with such minimal responses to sweep it under the carpet in the manner you have done.
I refuse to accept anything that comes out of NYT.
This is how you wind up repeating fake nonsense stories. This on you then isn't it. If you can't discern between good reporting and bad reporting in the NY Times or in the "MSM", if you simply reject all of it you are not looking to be informed, you're creating an information bubble, a bubble designed to you make you feel better.
Let's me put this to you. Show me why think the NYPD has evidence from Weiner's laptop. Where did you get that idea? Was it from a credible source?
You've said the NYPD isn't in the habit of replying to every fake story.
That's not an acceptable reason excuse. This is not just any fake story, it's a priority story, based on all the responses one would think they'd know that.
So there are priority fake stories? Fake stories that rise to the level where people have to respond to fakers? And what responses are you talking about? The conspiracy sites on the internet?
The NYPD should hold a press conference to explain that it never said anything in the first place?
Let's say, they came out said they never had the laptop and these stories are fake, would you believe them?
This is how you wind up repeating fake nonsense stories. This on you then isn't it. If you can't discern between good reporting and bad reporting in the NY Times or in the "MSM", if you simply reject all of it you are not looking to be informed, you're creating an information bubble, a bubble designed to you make you feel better.
Do you not realize that I could tell you the same in reply to your position that media other than NYPD, apparently a fashion magazine name Vanity Fair, and .... what was the other news rag you said was reputable?
I could say that you are rejecting scores of news outlets, or information outlets, and if you can't discern between good reporting and bad reporting, if you simply reject all of it you are not looking to be informed, you're creating an information bubble, a bubble designed to you make you feel better.
So, you're saying that I should look at these 3 media outlets and learn to discern which articles are fake or real?
hmmm.
The problem is that at this point government and its propaganda machines are corrupt.
Don't give me that, "if a press release was done involving Weiners laptop I wouldn't believe it."
Are you not aware of Vanity Fair? Yes, they do glitz and glamour, but they do news and politics too and their journalism is well reported. The author of that Vanity Fair piece is Bethany McLean one of the best investigative reporters around. She wrote the Defiinite Book on the Enron scandal and co-wrote the best book on what caused the financial crisis. I highly recommend these two books.
The smartest guys in the room : the amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. Penguin.
All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis.
rejecting scores of news outlets, or information outlets,
Most of these fake news sites do no reporting whatsoever. I asked how you got the idea about the NYPD. Were you not able to come up with a source that would withstand scrutiny?
I always saw vanity fair in the checkout isle and viewed it as a fluff rag. I didn't realize there were decent articles in that book, thanks for the different viewpoint, I'll check it out.
How did I get the idea about the NYPD... that's just the problem, there were a few different stories and at this point I have no idea how exactly to determine what sources are true.
It's really such a sad state of affairs. Like most of the rest of the world I don't have inner access to private information, making it difficult to do research on my own.
NYT and WAPO have pretty much caused me to throw those 2 babies out with the bathwater.
I always saw vanity fair in the checkout isle and viewed it as a fluff rag. I didn't realize there were decent articles in that book, thanks for the different viewpoint, I'll check it out.
In a lot of ways, they are like an upmarket People magazine, their focus is on the rich and high society. But they also do some good articles. They specialize in scandal and crimes among the rich.
The whole point is, because the contents of the laptop are AWOL, we can't know either way what they contain.....clearly you don't have a problem with that and think everything is legit .....but it would be easy enough to clear the whole matter up for those of us less trusting of these people....if you know anything of the history of institutional abuse, it's amazing how often evidence is "lost"
As they are so fond of telling us to justify intrusion into our privacy...."if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
but it would be easy enough to clear the whole matter up for those of us less trusting of these people.
That's not the standard whatsoever. What about the people who that wouldn't clear anything up for who would just claim the evidence was fake? What about the insane people? Should that be the standard.
The whole point is, because the contents of the laptop are AWOL,
No they are not. The contents of the laptop were examined in two separate legal cases. You don't get see all my stuff, even if I commit a crime. You only get to see the stuff that is presented as evidence in a court of law. You don't get to determine what is AWOL.
You realize essentially what you are arguing for is a system where a person's enemies can plant a whole bunch of fake stories in ideological news site ( which is exactly what happened) and then use these lies to justify a deeper and wholesale invasion of privacy based on the principle of "clearing the whole matter up."
As they are so fond of telling us to justify intrusion into our privacy...."if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
WTF? You are coming out on the side of BIG TIME invasion of privacy in this case. Can you not see this?
You are basically arguing for a standard on the basis of a deliberate deception campaign that lied to you. The idea is that NYPD was about to make a bunch of arrests based on Wiener's laptop is false and several of the claimed facts that this story rests upon (NYPD got the laptop first) are shown to be false.
No they are not. The contents of the laptop were examined in two separate legal cases.
You don't get see all my stuff, even if I commit a crime.
You only get to see the stuff that is presented as evidence in a court of law. You don't get to determine what is AWOL.
You are not an official, are you? Many of these officials are corrupted from polticians, to judges and government employees who work on their teams. They are not allowed to be free from the public eye because they work for the public. This is exactly how pedo crime was swept under the rug in the Franklin case, Project Flicker, the Dutroux case and many other cases including Weiner and Clinton.
RweSure:
You realize essentially what you are arguing for is a system where a person's enemies can plant a whole bunch of fake stories in ideological news site ( which is exactly what happened) and then use these lies to justify a deeper and wholesale invasion of privacy based on the principle of "clearing the whole matter up."
Please say you're not on the Russia-did-it band train.
If full open disclosure was promoted within the political and government official system the scenario you paint would be nipped much easier. The problem is that they not only have full privacy, but in many cases they have full immunity, or lax consequences. It's due to this lack of disclosure that such scenarios that you present are easier to put in place.
For example, Project Flicker. People in higher ranks became implicated and exposed. It ended up being shut down on ridiculous claims that there wasn't enough funding, or at least that was one story that was used.
NO!
As a result it's been hidden to this day.
Actually, the public should protest and demand the Project Flicker Senator Grassley investigation be re-opened under FULL disclosure so none of the roaches can hide.
The problem is that everyone is afraid of the Clinton Foundation Machine, even Comey was (according to FBIAnon).. because anyone who turns against them, ends up suicided or accidented, etc
The Obumma admin had plenty of time to pursue his case, but didn't.. for obvious reasons, so he left the whole thing for Trump to take care of.. and he did.
This is stupid. Schwartz has yet to be prosecuted. You're comparing apples and oranges. And the white house in either case has nothing to do with what cases are brought.
The Weiner case was a federal investigation, which is why he was finally convicted and going to jail.
The Schwartz case couldn't possibly be a Federal case, but, why didn't this guy get caught under Obumma?
i am sure he didn't start being a pedo after Trump took office. LOL
The Schwartz case couldn't possibly be a Federal case, but, why didn't this guy get caught under Obumma? i am sure he didn't start being a pedo after Trump took office. LOL
You have no idea how incredibly dumb that argument is do you? Like you're blissfully unaware of it.
Sure, genius, the Attorney General couldn't possibly have any power over local law enforcement to prosecute and go after pedophiles..
It is all a conspiracy theory, like all the leaked HIllary emails..
You are showing your ignorance with every post. No, Attorney General Sessions does not direct local law enforcement. That's why Manhattan also has an Attorney General.
view the rest of the comments →
quantokitty ago
I only wish this was true. It certainly doesn't appear it is, but then our lousy fake news wouldn't be reporting this, would they?
GrDec ago
I think it is true.. or do you think it is a coincidence that both democrat pedos (((Jacob Schwartz))) and (((Anthony Weiner))) got caught under Trump and not under Obumma?
quantokitty ago
Weiner was caught last year ... before the election.
GrDec ago
Yes, but he was convicted under Trump.
The Trump admin worked out his plea deal and his jail term.
He would have never served jail under Obumma.
quantokitty ago
True .... I'd love to know what else is on that computer ...
shoosh ago
and there lies the problem... this immunity and non-disclosure is sickening. They want the public to fight for the politicians and go to war for them at the drop of a word, but apparently aren't fit enough to get the real truth from full disclosure of all issues.
quantokitty ago
Totally agree.
RweSure ago
what non-disclosure? what you are you talking about? What is the legal basis for the disclosure you are thinking of?
If you think the Weiner laptop was jammed with evidence of other crimes, you've been lied to.
shoosh ago
Lied to? No evidence of other crimes? Prove it.
That's the problem, the public aren't allowed any type of honest full disclosure, not only in the Weiner case, but all cases. They might declassify documents but even then censoring and deleting is a massive problem. This is wrong.
This promotes the problems we're seeing right now. The public want the truth and they aren't getting it. That's why this forum is in place, or didn't you put that together yet. Legal basis for disclosure? How about full transparency from officials with the purpose of preventing crime that is prevalent globally. *note: the officials work for the public, the public don't work for the officials. It's all ass backwards to protect a criminal playground and that's exactly what's happening. .
RweSure ago
You've been lied to about the Weiner laptop. The story was the NYPD got the laptop first and were on the verge of making arrests, then the FBI bigfooted them and demanded the case. The NYPD was worried the FBI wouldn't got after all these supposedly dozens of gutwrenching crimes, so they copied the evidence and if Comey didn't come through, they were going to leak all the evidence.
Well it didn't happen. The NYPD didn't leak all these supposed evidence of horrible crimes. It didn't happen because the story was a fake. The NYPD were not the ones who seized the laptop, the FBI was. The FBI HAS had possession of it all the way through.
shoosh ago
Another related question....
You say that FBI was in charge of the investigation, not NYPD. That wouldn't be in keeping with regular protocol.
An example of regular protocol click on link and scroll half way down:
http://politopinion.com/2017/05/manhattan-young-democrats-arrested-child-porn-charges/
For example, in the above link Schwartz was investigate first by NYPD special computer team, which is the norm.
shoosh ago
The story I heard was that NYPD had access to the files. Regardless of who got there first, wouldn't NYPD have access to data on those files?
Are you saying the NYPD wasn't aware of anything on the files? If so, why wouldn't they come forward in a press meeting and clear it up? Did I blink and miss the meeting that clearly said they didn't know what was on the files?
Do you have mainstream media links and official link interviews to back this up? What would they have to lose by providing an honest explanation? What do they have to gain by not providing one?
What about the Clinton Files that weren't allowed disclosure. Are you also saying that is fake and there's nothing on those files either? If so, then why not provide disclosure? Why the secrecy?
If politicians and government workers would just give honest news reviews, instead of using the mainstream media as a fake propaganda machine, these stories wouldn't become as mixed up as they are.
RweSure ago
Yes, this was the story. However, this story said that NYPD seized the laptop and that was not true. The story further said that the NYPD backed up the contents of the laptop before turning it over the FBI. There would be no legal basis for this. This story did not come from official sources. The truth is the FBI were the ones who seized the laptop.
No. This was a federal case and it was federal subpoena by the US Attorney who filed it. It was not the local Manhattan DA that deals with the NYPD and local cases.
Because they never said they had them in the first place and this story was pushed on fake news sites on the web. The NYPD is not in the habit of responding to every fake story on the internet.
A few places have done a big deep-dive story into how the Comey letter came out. Vanity Fair :The story broke in the Daily Mail on September 21, and the F.B.I. seized the laptop on October 3."
NYTimes "F.B.I. agents in New York seized Mr. Weiner’s laptop in early October. "
So we know who seized the laptop and when. The more telling detail is in both of these deeply reported stories, the NYPD is never mentioned at all.
I'm not sure what you are speaking of here. If you are referring to Hillary Clinton's personal emails, the policy of the State Department was in order to comply with the Federal Records Act, if a person used a personal email account, they would have to review their emails and turn over emails that were government records. There's no requirements for her to turn over her personal emails per State Department guidelines and was held up on Court when people sued to have them released.
When the State Department asked for her government emails, she tasked her lawyers with going through her account and determined what was a government record. They did this by a series of searches I believe. Some of the emails she turned over to the State Department were returned back to her because they were determined to not be a government record and did not require archiving. Some emails were missed. The FBI uncovered these through forensic means, but determined there was no effort at deception. (For example, they had been deleted years ago or their did not show up in search results.) The FBI determined they made a good faith effort in determining which was which. Compliance with the Federal Records Act does not result in a criminal investigation by the way.
Why the secrecy? Personal is personal. The bulk release of work emails is highly unusual as well. You can request certain emails through a Freedom of Information ACT request, but you can request " your whole Inbox and Outbox." It doesn't work that way. These were released because a judge ordered it. (Fun fact. Even if she used a state.gov account, she would not be in compliance with the Federal Records Act, because the State Department technology was so far behind the times, this was not automatically compatible with the archive software required for email. The tech now is, but they were just rolling that out during her tenure.)
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Schwartz case is a local case and never involved the FBI. The Weiner case was always a federal case. The local DA announced they wanted to look into it, but the feds got the subpoena first. Also the Weiner case crossed state lines as the 16 year old was in NC.
The norm you are pointing to doesn't apply at all.
shoosh ago
Thanks for your time and reply.
I'll read the Daily Mail article you've provided. I actually like the Daily Mail and think it's one of the few, maybe only, rag that I somewhat trust.
Vanity Fair is questionable and I refuse to accept anything that comes out of NYT.
The problem being that news media is a propaganda machine that I can't trust or be sure of anything I hear.
You've said the NYPD isn't in the habit of replying to every fake story.
That's not an acceptable
reasonexcuse. This is not just any fake story, it's a priority story, based on all the responses one would think they'd know that.This does produce a massive problem.
It might be helpful if a political press release came out specifically addressing the wider issues due to Weiner/Abedin/Clinton connection.
Did I miss it?
shoosh ago
Edited to add:
The public has the right to know what their polticians are doing. The public is paying for them to maintain their society and work on their behalf. Their role should in no way fall under the ''personal'' information clause you've sighted. Instead of personal right of privacy they get full blown immunity. They shouldn't get special immunity of any kind.
This is not just any small issue, it's a priority issue and shouldn't be treated with such minimal responses to sweep it under the carpet in the manner you have done.
RweSure ago
This is how you wind up repeating fake nonsense stories. This on you then isn't it. If you can't discern between good reporting and bad reporting in the NY Times or in the "MSM", if you simply reject all of it you are not looking to be informed, you're creating an information bubble, a bubble designed to you make you feel better.
Let's me put this to you. Show me why think the NYPD has evidence from Weiner's laptop. Where did you get that idea? Was it from a credible source?
So there are priority fake stories? Fake stories that rise to the level where people have to respond to fakers? And what responses are you talking about? The conspiracy sites on the internet?
The NYPD should hold a press conference to explain that it never said anything in the first place?
Let's say, they came out said they never had the laptop and these stories are fake, would you believe them?
shoosh ago
Do you not realize that I could tell you the same in reply to your position that media other than NYPD, apparently a fashion magazine name Vanity Fair, and .... what was the other news rag you said was reputable?
I could say that you are rejecting scores of news outlets, or information outlets, and if you can't discern between good reporting and bad reporting, if you simply reject all of it you are not looking to be informed, you're creating an information bubble, a bubble designed to you make you feel better.
So, you're saying that I should look at these 3 media outlets and learn to discern which articles are fake or real?
hmmm.
The problem is that at this point government and its propaganda machines are corrupt.
Don't give me that, "if a press release was done involving Weiners laptop I wouldn't believe it."
Don't be that person.
RweSure ago
Are you not aware of Vanity Fair? Yes, they do glitz and glamour, but they do news and politics too and their journalism is well reported. The author of that Vanity Fair piece is Bethany McLean one of the best investigative reporters around. She wrote the Defiinite Book on the Enron scandal and co-wrote the best book on what caused the financial crisis. I highly recommend these two books.
The smartest guys in the room : the amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. Penguin. All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis.
Here's another Vanity Fair piece. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2005/07/deepthroat200507
Most of these fake news sites do no reporting whatsoever. I asked how you got the idea about the NYPD. Were you not able to come up with a source that would withstand scrutiny?
shoosh ago
I always saw vanity fair in the checkout isle and viewed it as a fluff rag. I didn't realize there were decent articles in that book, thanks for the different viewpoint, I'll check it out.
How did I get the idea about the NYPD... that's just the problem, there were a few different stories and at this point I have no idea how exactly to determine what sources are true.
It's really such a sad state of affairs. Like most of the rest of the world I don't have inner access to private information, making it difficult to do research on my own.
NYT and WAPO have pretty much caused me to throw those 2 babies out with the bathwater.
RweSure ago
In a lot of ways, they are like an upmarket People magazine, their focus is on the rich and high society. But they also do some good articles. They specialize in scandal and crimes among the rich.
madhatter67 ago
The whole point is, because the contents of the laptop are AWOL, we can't know either way what they contain.....clearly you don't have a problem with that and think everything is legit .....but it would be easy enough to clear the whole matter up for those of us less trusting of these people....if you know anything of the history of institutional abuse, it's amazing how often evidence is "lost"
As they are so fond of telling us to justify intrusion into our privacy...."if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
RweSure ago
That's not the standard whatsoever. What about the people who that wouldn't clear anything up for who would just claim the evidence was fake? What about the insane people? Should that be the standard.
No they are not. The contents of the laptop were examined in two separate legal cases. You don't get see all my stuff, even if I commit a crime. You only get to see the stuff that is presented as evidence in a court of law. You don't get to determine what is AWOL.
You realize essentially what you are arguing for is a system where a person's enemies can plant a whole bunch of fake stories in ideological news site ( which is exactly what happened) and then use these lies to justify a deeper and wholesale invasion of privacy based on the principle of "clearing the whole matter up."
WTF? You are coming out on the side of BIG TIME invasion of privacy in this case. Can you not see this?
You are basically arguing for a standard on the basis of a deliberate deception campaign that lied to you. The idea is that NYPD was about to make a bunch of arrests based on Wiener's laptop is false and several of the claimed facts that this story rests upon (NYPD got the laptop first) are shown to be false.
madhatter67 ago
The big time invasion of privacy already happened....all I'm saying is what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
But we all know it's one set of rules for us and another for them
shoosh ago
@RweSure @madhatter67
RweSure
You are not an official, are you? Many of these officials are corrupted from polticians, to judges and government employees who work on their teams. They are not allowed to be free from the public eye because they work for the public. This is exactly how pedo crime was swept under the rug in the Franklin case, Project Flicker, the Dutroux case and many other cases including Weiner and Clinton.
RweSure:
Please say you're not on the Russia-did-it band train.
If full open disclosure was promoted within the political and government official system the scenario you paint would be nipped much easier. The problem is that they not only have full privacy, but in many cases they have full immunity, or lax consequences. It's due to this lack of disclosure that such scenarios that you present are easier to put in place.
For example, Project Flicker. People in higher ranks became implicated and exposed. It ended up being shut down on ridiculous claims that there wasn't enough funding, or at least that was one story that was used. NO! As a result it's been hidden to this day. Actually, the public should protest and demand the Project Flicker Senator Grassley investigation be re-opened under FULL disclosure so none of the roaches can hide.
GrDec ago
The problem is that everyone is afraid of the Clinton Foundation Machine, even Comey was (according to FBIAnon).. because anyone who turns against them, ends up suicided or accidented, etc
RweSure ago
Stop misusing DNC. Good Lord, that's annoying.
Now go back and look at the date when Weiner got caught.
GrDec ago
Weiner was prosecuted and agreed to a plea deal under Trump..not Under Obumma.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/nyregion/anthony-weiner-guilty-plea-sexting.html
The Obumma admin had plenty of time to pursue his case, but didn't.. for obvious reasons, so he left the whole thing for Trump to take care of.. and he did.
RweSure ago
This is stupid. Schwartz has yet to be prosecuted. You're comparing apples and oranges. And the white house in either case has nothing to do with what cases are brought.
GrDec ago
The Weiner case was a federal investigation, which is why he was finally convicted and going to jail.
The Schwartz case couldn't possibly be a Federal case, but, why didn't this guy get caught under Obumma? i am sure he didn't start being a pedo after Trump took office. LOL
RweSure ago
You have no idea how incredibly dumb that argument is do you? Like you're blissfully unaware of it.
GrDec ago
Sure, genius, the Attorney General couldn't possibly have any power over local law enforcement to prosecute and go after pedophiles.. It is all a conspiracy theory, like all the leaked HIllary emails..
RweSure ago
You are showing your ignorance with every post. No, Attorney General Sessions does not direct local law enforcement. That's why Manhattan also has an Attorney General.
GrDec ago
Sure, Attorney General Sessions has NO power, he is just another do-nothing-bureocrat,
This whole article about "President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is closing in on elite pedophile rings" is just BS.
It cannot be done...
RweSure ago
Yes. Now we agree.