Posted on 01/13/2018 5:29:15 AM PST by bitt
Where did you go? I searched the whole article for the word "Tenex" and it doesn't even appear. So I searched Google for "Tenex conviction" and found one from back in 2015, as I originally said. That hardly classifies as "months ago" so still waiting for your response, and hoping you have something better. Thanks.
They should only be allowed to self-exile after serving serious time in a Fed SuperMax for their many, many crimes.
After BOOM! I trust that I can break into my happy dance.
Like frog marching and orange jumpsuits...boom.
5.56mm
The same here, FRiend!
Regardless.
Thanks for following Sundance and posting what he/they present.
This is an example of why 99% of my news comes from Free Republic.
I can quickly scan any new post, check out/go to the referenced article. Then, decide if I want to read any more from the original article.
Most of the boom posts and posts re Fake News get at most a few seconds of my time.
Keep the good work going and pinging.
Also, we need to donate monthly to Free Republic to keep these positive interactions going and to save our precious time.
> I wonder whose/what initials TEN is/are.
I think it’s Tennessee, as in Oak Ridge.
Yes, I think you are correct that Weisman was working as “General Counsel” for Mueller at the FBI during the time of the Uranium One scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Weissmann
Rosenstein worked for Mueller as far back as 1990. He was primarily known for being the US’s Attorney for Maryland, where he worked until being appointed Deputy AG under Sessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein
There’s really no way to predict how this may turn out yet, and many may be adjusting their positions along the way. But people should be judged by their fruits, and Mueller, Rosenstein, and Weissman all have very questionable backgrounds, and all very well could have been involved in the coverup of Uranium One, if not other notorious scandals of the day.
Here in the present, we see multiple Trump associates arrested, yet not one from the Clinton orgs, or the DOJ that was protecting them. Hopefully that will change, but with an Attorney General who is recused from actually investigating any of it, by choice, the chances of actual arrests of the Clintons or the DOJ would by extension be lower, just by nature. So we have to keep the pressure up, and not listen to those claiming it’s all already in the bag, because that usually means they just don’t have to fortitude or capability to actually keep up with it, and are just hoping someone else will take care of it all for them.
I hope this guy’s confidence is not misplaced.
Yes, that is the new indictment, that was just announced yesterday. The claim I was pursuing was that there had been an actual conviction related to Tenex in the last few months, which I still haven’t found any proof of.
Hopefully of course this means the DOJ is actually re-opening the investigation into Uranium One. However I would be much more confident in an independent special counsel being assigned to conduct the investigation, as has been requested by many in Congress, as the investigation needs to include a determination as to whether officials like Mueller covered up the original investigation, and the DOJ cannot honestly be trusted to investigate itself.
You could look it up...
Really? Off I go to google.....
You could look it up...
I think the MS-13 roll-up by Sessions is also worthy of note on LS’s list, as this could be early stages of prosecutions in one probe or another, leading via Seth Rich murder back to emails or via drug-running connections back to Hezbollah—and from there back to the Iran nuke deal money trail (bribes paid).
I hope Libya (and other Mideast countries) can be added to LS’s list as Liz suggests via the Blumenthal emails or otherwise. This was a nation-scale home invasion and murder—one of Obama/Clinton’s more heinous crimes (though it pales by comparison with trying to overthrow the U.S. Constitional Government).
Not sure where the Saudi upheaval fits within a list of US DoJ actions ... but, it’s obviously related to the overall takedown of the international criminal conspiracy of Clinton/Bushes/Obama.
The sleaze surrounding these people is just endless. I do not know any rock-solid evidence ... but it is so easy to believe the child-trafficking allegations. These are the people that stole the hurricane relief funds from the people of Haiti.
AbsolutelyWhy not? What failed?
Ideological competition in journalism is the planted axiom of the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to be hearable, and therefore “the truth will out.” Theoretically.But, there is another theory:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776). . . and that theory prevails. People of the “trade” of journalism do, and arguably have to, “meet together” - at least virtually. The Associated Press began (as the New York Associated Press) only four years after the 1844 demonstration of Morse's Baltimore - Washington telegraph. The AP was aggressively monopolistic from its inception, and already in the Nineteenth Century people began to question its concentration of propaganda power. But back then, newspapers were, and had always been, idiosyncratic and dominated by their printers - everyone expected opinionated journalism and made allowances for it. So when the AP replied to its critics that its stories mostly came from its member newspapers, and they famously did not agree on just about anything - and that the AP itself was therefore objective - its defense was successful.There may have been a grain of truth in that argument in the Nineteenth Century, but in the long run the fact that the AP “wire” was and is nothing but a virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets brought Adam Smith’s analysis into play. A “meeting” of all major news outlets - not about “merriment and diversion” but precisely about business - has been ongoing since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary. The consequence is that the absence of “a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is not plausible.
The obvious questions questions are, “What form would such a conspiracy take?” and “If such a ‘conspiracy' exists, why is it not obvious?” Adam Smith again:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.Thus we see that journalists want to be believed, and therefore have a motive to “go along and get along” with each other in order to maximize the respect they get from the public. This implies that people who resist “joining the Borg” of the journalism establishment will be marginalized and squeezed out of the business. Anyone who questions the objectivity of a journalist is automatically categorized as “not objective, not a journalist.”The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
The business of journalism has rules which are optimized, not to benefit the public, but to make journalism profitable. One of the most famous is, “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man.’” Another is that “If it bleeds, it leads.” Both focus journalism on the negative - in the former case, that means not only “bad” but also the opposite of what usually happens. Which means that a story of abuse by someone or some organization which is considered trustworthy by the public makes the best story for preventing the public from ignoring the news.”
The upshot is that journalism has motive, and via the AP has opportunity, to collude against the public by unifying in projecting a cynical view of society. But a cynical view of society corresponds to a naive view of government, as the radical notion that “things couldn’t be worse” illustrates. If “things couldn’t be worse,” government must do something. Conservatives always know that things could be worse - and, with increased government, almost certainly will.
I attribute the fact that huge swathes of the public are not conservative to the first point in the Smith quote - "The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough.”
The short answer to your question is that journalism favors Democrats.
I do believe cronies Blumenthal-—and Cheryl Mills-—played a big part in this horror story ——
The two are clammed up somewhere (in a fetal position).
Add me to this ping list please
return to the thread - at #115 and down
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.