Living and Raw Foods web site.  Educating the world about the power of living and raw plant based diet.  This site has the most resources online including articles, recipes, chat, information, personals and more!
 

Click this banner to check it out!
Click here to find out more!

Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 16, 2018 11:49PM

Four thousand indictments is a silly number. The prosecutorial and judicial resources don't exist to process that many simultaneous indictments. And if they somehow managed it, then there'd be >4,000 defendants with a constitutional right to a speedy trial. That's way more than is possible to prosecute simultaneously. Calling bullshit.

Prana When an idictment is drawn they dont wait months to serve.
The whloe thing about the indictments is paraniod bullshit time is proving.

These "rumors" of upcoming indictments are like the hope of being rescued when your boat capsized or, or having cancer and hoping for a cure. It is NICE to hear of all of these "indictments, to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling, but I will believe it when I see it.... And indictments for "WHAT"?? If it is up to Jeff Sessions, they may be to arrest retired people smoking dope in their backyards



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2018 12:12AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: January 17, 2018 01:24AM

riverhousebill, its actually over 9,000 as of Dec 22, and today it may be even more. This website has a slideshow showing how to search the pacer dot gov website to see the sealed indictments (it takes some work to tally the sealed ones, as this is not a search parameter). 9,294K Sealed Indictment Count for USA Through 12.22.17


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 17, 2018 03:25AM

Prana ,I went to link you posted on indictments.

Its not a valid news source, matter of fact its a very weird site.
Yhis offers no prove of this bull @#$%& 9,000 plus indictments you will never see.

Here is what I found about one person involved with that link-

Something Fresh For You - The Arrest of Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf - Accessing the Account Attached to your Birth Certificate Worth Millions (self.conspiracy)


Seems like a lot of people have tried to confirm this rumor and nobdy has been able to do that. Except for these None News sites.
Google this I U V IM Power Love Absolute and you will see whud up kids.

Somtimes with Indictments they will hold back on serving while they watch suspects with intent to spook them into mistakes, But in most cases with sealed indictments they are served not long after Indictment



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2018 03:36AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: January 17, 2018 04:07AM

riverhousebill, regardless of whether you agree with the website, it shows you how to determine the numbers for yourself. If you want the truth, go to the pacer dot gov site and find out for yourself. You can prove or disprove this info by following their instructions. Just take a look on just one district, California Central District. There ought to be 815 or more sealed indictments over the last 4 months. If you don't feel like reading the instructions and looking for yourself, because you would rather believe what you believe rather than know the truth, I would understand.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 18, 2018 10:29AM

9000 indictments means 9000 grand jurys. Do you have any idea how long that would take? And i know a very good lawyer Prana jay moller, You may also know jay same town. I will ask jay what's up with this rumor. It would take years to panel 9000 jury's. I asked you before if you have seen the numbers yourself on pacer and you said no. Has that changed?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 19, 2018 07:32AM

YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS MASS INDICTMENT< TIME WILL SHOW BAMBOOZLED AGAIN
The link you posted -9,294K Sealed Indictment Count for USA Through 12.22.17
Check this research group on that link HUM?
Prana Have you seen the numbers? If not I would also understand because you would rather believe what you believe rather than know the truth,

I think this story of indictments might be from the same wacky source that said Hilliary and Macain are wearing large ski boots to hide gps monitors almost the size of a zippo lighter.
Im putting my boots on its getting deep.
Oh and the nuke button thing, I think Obama lanched one trying to hit the Islands so he could destroy vital statistics for a cover of his African birth.

Hear say this rumor of 9,000 indictments








Brian Browdie
October 14, 2016



Pacer, which stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is a clunky system that doesn’t allow users to search for court papers by their content or look up filings across the web of district, bankruptcy, and circuit courts that make up the federal judiciary. And there’s little that outside developers can do about it.

“You should be able to say, for example, ‘Give me everything that has the word motion in its description and that talks about copyright,'” says Mike Lissner, executive director of the nonprofit Free Law Project. “That’s not possible.”




Lissner, whose group provides free online access to primary legal materials, says the system’s shortcomings are a direct result of the fees attached to Pacer documents. “If the data were free,” he says, “you’d see an ecosystem cropping up with competitive services improving it.”

As it happens, the paywall that surrounds Pacer is facing what may be its most serious test since the service emerged 28 years ago. Judge Ellen Huvelle of the US district court in Washington DC is expected to decide in the coming days whether a lawsuit accusing the government of setting Pacer fees at unlawfully high rates can proceed.
Talk about



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2018 07:43AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 19, 2018 11:24PM

Here is proof that this Mass Indictment rumor is pure bullshit.

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, a system that doesn’t allow users to search for court papers by their content.
The contents of a court indictment can not be viewed until trial closed.

Ive talked to William Welch my ex Attorney from the famed Tony Serra office and he confirms this that content can not be viewed.

CONSPIRACY DREAMERS ASLEEP WHILE THE WORLD GOES TO HELL IN A BUCKET!

Every one fighting each other over non existint conspiracys instead of reallity
were @#$%&.



Now read about this Lie in your face




This is from websitehttpps:/cosmos.com




QUOTE COSMOS.COM-
Stunning New Briefings: Mass Indictments, Targeted Arrests and Disclosure
THIS IS THE BIG ONE
We also read excerpts from a court document naming Hillary Clinton and the Weiner laptop from last December, filled with tons of interesting cross-outs.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2018 11:42PM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 20, 2018 12:16AM

Well now I know the father (Hillary Indicted) Part of Mass Federal Arrest Story

My boots are on Prana.


I think you have been bamboozled my friend, thats what i believe.


Prana, You are free to believe what you want but check out the post on snopes about where this all started about a mass federal arrest Hiilary indicted which.
And jennifer dont blame snopes because they are not the sorce of the facts.
Of course you are free to believe what you want,like me, But stay open give this a read

Hillary Clinton to Be Indicted on Federal Racketeering ... - Snopes.com
[www.snopes.com] Huffington Post link circulated on Facebook suggested Hillary Clinton would imminently face a racketeering (or RICO) indictment, but the article was unvetted.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: January 23, 2018 02:47AM

Quote
riverhousebill
Prana, You are free to believe what you want but check out the post on snopes about where this all started about a mass federal arrest Hiilary indicted which.
And jennifer dont blame snopes because they are not the sorce of the facts.
Of course you are free to believe what you want,like me, But stay open give this a read

Hillary Clinton to Be Indicted on Federal Racketeering ... - Snopes.com
[www.snopes.com] A Huffington Post link circulated on Facebook suggested Hillary Clinton would imminently face a racketeering (or RICO) indictment, but the article was unvetted.

Hey RHB, that snores article was written in 2016, and was referring to a claim in 2016, which as we both know, was under the Obama administration. Yes, under that corrupt regime, there is no way a criminal like HRC would have been indicted. But things have changed for the better, and a super evil mega-villain like HRC will no longer be above the law.

Next time, you might consider looking at the date of an article before posting it as relevant.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 04:08AM

To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun; the moon; and the truth.

Time will be the proof to these sensational indictment rumors

Time now proves Uranium One Clinton Indictment Just a wishful fantasy!




Uranium One Indictment Fantasy falls apart as for the old post I was pointing out another indictment rumor that never flowerd, that was the point.

No, Uranium One investigation has not led to an indictment

By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, January 17th, 2018 at 11:51 a.m.



Several news websites have reported that the investigation of wrongdoing involving Uranium One and Hillary Clinton bagged its first indictment.

Facebook users flagged a post from a site called Republican News as suspicious and possibly fake. The website’s Jan. 13 headline said, "First indictment issued in Russian bribery case tied to Obama-era Uranium One deal."

That post echoed similar reporting by the New York Post, which announced "there’s an indictment in the FBI probe of the Uranium One scandal," also on Jan. 13. The next day, The Hill repeated the Post report.

There was an indictment, but the Justice Department doesn’t tie it to the Uranium One deal.

Instead, the charges come out of a 2014 investigation of an American-based kickback scheme that defrauded millions of dollars from a subsidiary of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom.

The kickback scheme and Rosatom's 2010 purchase of a controlling interest in the Canadian company Uranium One were entirely separate. The kickback plan locked in contracts for an American firm to import Russian uranium. The other deal involved buying Uranium One stock. They involved different Rosatom subsidiaries and different activities.

The news reports tied the two together, but none gave details on the connection.

"The DOJ handed down an indictment in the Uranium One deal," Republican News said. "THIS is what the media was trying so hard to cover-up."

But it provided no evidence.

Let’s unpack this.

The indictment

Mark Lambert is the former co-president of Transport Logistics International, a Maryland company that arranged the transport of nuclear materials to the United States. According to the Jan. 12 indictment, between at least as early as 2009 and 2014, Lambert and his partner funneled money to a Russian official with Tenex, the company in charge of exporting Russian uranium.

Through an elaborate kickback scheme, the Maryland firm got the contracts to ship Russian uranium to the United States. Tenex paid handsomely for the firm’s services, and the Maryland firm shared some of the proceeds with the Russian official. In short, Tenex paid for the bribery.

Lambert’s indictment on Jan. 12, 2018, was just the most recent step in a long-running case against his company. That investigation made no mention of Uranium One.

In 2014, the Justice Department charged Lambert’s business partner, the Russian Tenex official and two others (including the wife of the business partner) with bribery, fraud and money laundering. All told, about $2.1 million ended up in overseas bank accounts controlled by the Russian.

For the record, the indictment of the Russian official said the scheme started in 2004. That’s six years before the Uranium One sale was on the table.

Lambert’s business partner and the Russian had pled guilty in 2015. The Russian is serving a two-year prison term, and the business partner is awaiting sentencing.

A Uranium One refresher

In 2010, the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom wanted to become the majority owner of the Canadian firm Uranium One. Uranium One had holdings in the United States, so the deal had to win approval by a number of state and federal agencies. That group included the State Department, then led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Our summary of the case gives plenty of details, but the gist is some of the owners of Uranium One had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. One in particular gave the foundation between $1.3 million and $5.6 million while the sale was under review.

On the 2016 campaign trail, candidate Donald Trump cast the donations as a payoff to grease the skids for approval.

There is no evidence that Clinton had a hand in the vetting process, an undertaking that involved eight federal offices in addition to the State Department.

Recently, Republicans have called for a fresh investigation of the matter. The Justice Department has made no official comment.

The department recently allowed an FBI informant in the Tenex bribery case to testify before a Senate committee investigating the Uranium One transaction. It is unknown what if anything new that informant might provide.

The indictment-Rosatom connection

How does the recent indictment link to the Uranium One sale? Aside from the tie to Rosatom, not in any obvious way.

The Maryland firm was in cahoots with Vadim Mikerin, a Russian national who was the general director of Tenam USA, the American arm of Tenex. Tenex is a subsidiary of JSC Atomenergoprom, which in turn is a subsidiary of Rosatom.

Rosatom bought the controlling share in Uranium One through another subsidiary.

There is no evidence that the kickback scheme that defrauded Tenex overlapped with Rosatom’s efforts to buy Uranium One. None of the news reports that claimed a connection provided any evidence. In fact, the New York Post article incorrectly said, "The federal investigation grew from charges that the Obama administration covered up an FBI probe of the uranium business — and thus allowed the Russian firm Tenex to buy a stake in Uranium One."

But Tenex was not the buyer. As a subsidiary of Rosatom, its role was to export Russian uranium, a very different business activity. The Rosatom subsidiary that bought the stake in Uranium One was Atomredmetzoloto.

Law professor Michael Koehler at Southern Illinois University School of Law is an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and has written about the Tenex prosecutions. He reviewed the indictment and saw no tie between the two matters.

"Last week’s case concerns the same core conduct the Justice Department brought action on in June 2015," Koehler said.

While any FBI investigation of the Uranium One deal lies behind a veil of secrecy at the department, Koehler said the idea that it might have spurred the latest indictment is "highly unlikely."

Our ruling

A website called Republican News said a recent bribery indictment is tied to the Uranium One deal. There was an indictment, but the Justice Department did not connect it to the sale of shares of Uranium One to Rosatom.

The indictment was the latest step in a 2014 investigation of a kickback scheme that defrauded a Rosatom subsidiary. That investigation had already secured two guilty pleas.

The reports that tied the indictment to Uranium One offered no evidence of a connection.

If new information from the Justice Department emerges, we’ll revisit this. But for now, we rate this claim False.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 04:24AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: January 23, 2018 04:43AM

I'm sorry, but the process of cleaning up the Uranium One crimes has already started.

Grand jury indicts Maryland executive in Uranium One deal: report

Former President of Maryland-Based Transportation Company Indicted on 11 Counts Related to Foreign Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 04:46AM by Prana.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 05:57AM

However, Uranium One was not mentioned by the Department of Justice in its release about the indictment handed to Lambert.

The indictment was eagerly celebrated by right-wing websites, communities, and social media.

Breitbart, the far-right website, tweeted a story (with a picture of Clinton) about the indictment by saying “now we’re cooking with gas.”

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 06:14AM

Im sorry but you are being mislead.



(The Daily Dot)



Uranium One theroy gains steam with federal Indictment





The former head of a Maryland transportation company was indicted as part of the revived probe into the so-called Uranium One deal, sending celebratory shockwaves through right-wing online communities.

A grand jury brought charges of money laundering and wire fraud against Mark Lambert, according to the Department of Justice, for allegedly trying to bribe a subsidiary of Russia‘s State Atomic Energy Corporation. The New York Post reported that the indictment was part of a recently revived probe into the Uranium One deal.

In December Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly revived an inquiry into the so-called Uranium One deal, an Obama-era agreement that allowed Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to be sold to a Russian firm. The sale needed approval from several agencies, including the State Department that was then-run by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The deal has been a lightning rod for conservatives, particularity as a separate probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties between the country and President Donald Trump‘s campaign has gained momentum.

While the deal has sparked conspiracy theories and the ire of right-wing online communities, several sources—including one host on Fox News—have debunked the claims. One congressman even tried to explain the conspiracy using a nonsensical chart.




As part of the newly-revived probe into Uranium One, authorities said Lambert tried to bribe Vadim Mikerin, an official at TENEX, a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation. Lambert allegedly tried to conceal payments with code words such as “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake.”

However, Uranium One was not mentioned by the Department of Justice in its release about the indictment handed to Lambert.

The indictment was eagerly celebrated by right-wing websites, communities, and social media.

Breitbart, the far-right website, tweeted a story (with a picture of Clinton) about the indictment by saying “now we’re cooking with gas.”



Others thought the indictment was not getting enough coverage because people were leaking “bogus stories” to distract from it.



Even hyper-conservative politicians got in on the goading. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), known as one of the more conservative members of Congress, seemed to think the indictment meant Clinton’s presidential campaign (and not Trump’s) colluded with Russia.

“DOJ brings 11 count indictment on Uranium One deal. Collusion with the Russians was #NeverTrump & #AlwaysHillary,” King wrote.


Related video



Dave Rubin is defending free speech from progressives



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 06:16AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 07:53AM

Even hyper-conservative politicians got in on the goading. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), known as one of the more conservative members of Congress, seemed to think the indictment meant Clinton’s presidential campaign (and not Trump’s) colluded with Russia.

I would not hold my breath waiting for Obama or Clinton Indictments.

The bottom line proof of the Pudding- Not your post not mine!

To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun; the moon; and the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 07:56AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 07:11PM

Qoute Prana-Im sorry, but the process of cleaning up the Uranium One crimes has already started.

Prana Im deeply sorry but the process begain a while back with the Manafort, Gates Inictment.

And we have aready had guilty pleas in exchange for a plea bargain.

Some think the indictment meant Clinton’s presidential campaign (and not Trump’s) colluded with Russia, But like you say you are free to believe what you want

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: January 23, 2018 07:21PM

sorry the story is falling apart, I would like to see Hillary indicted, but I realize that is fantasy at this stage in game. I will post more on this later Im busy this morning.

Meanwhile google this-

FBI Texts Reveal Major Flaw In GOP Theory Of ‘Deep State’ Plot To Defeat Trump

Messages between two FBI employees show they recoiled at the idea of using government power against anti-Clinton forces.






By Ryan J. Reilly





Ryan J Reilly
Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

1.4k



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 07:22PM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: February 16, 2018 08:20PM

Wow the Indictments must be starting to back up by now better get serving.

I bet its up to 30,000 by now,

13 indictments from the Muller team today is a start,

looks like a rough road for Trump and crew.

Obama, retired the good life now.

Morons say he is guilty of just about everything that's wrong in the world, Yet they cant secure an Indictment?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: February 18, 2018 11:36AM

Quote
riverhousebill

13 indictments from the Muller team today is a start,


Yeah, a start in admitting that He Can't Find Anything at all on Trump Colluding with Russia.


Quote
riverhousebill

Morons say he is guilty of just about everything that's wrong in the world, Yet they cant secure an Indictment?


Yup, and after a year - or is it more - Mueller has wasted our money, Taxpayer Money, on a Wild Goose Chase because he has absolutely nothing - No Proof - on any Trump Collusion with Russia - that the Libs Fabricated - that he's been investigating. No Indictment of Trump.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: February 20, 2018 10:50PM

Quote
riverhousebill

13 indictments from the Muller team today is a start,

looks like a rough road for Trump and crew.

Morons say he is guilty of just about everything that's wrong in the world, Yet they cant secure an Indictment?


Admit it, it's over, RHB - they've got nothing! No collusion between Trump and Russia regarding the election -

Do indictments of Russians vindicate the Trump campaign?

Indictments do not allege there was collusion between Russians and Trump's campaign; Rep. Ron DeSantis reacts to latest Russia investigation developments on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is dead

[www.foxnews.com]

Friday’s grand jury indictment in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election destroys Democratic claims that the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russia to win the race, and that the Russian interference cost Hillary Clinton the election. It is now time for Mueller to look into real election interference and collusion with the Russians by the Democrats.

The grand jury indicted 13 Russians and three Russian entities for their alleged efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. The indictment says the Russians hid their involvement in this scheme and communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign. There was no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the scheme.

Boom. The Democratic Trump-Russia collusion narrative is dead.

But the left will continue to argue that Russia handed the presidency to Donald Trump. Expect them to claim this is proven by two things: the sophistication of the election interference effort; and the allegation that the accused Russians promoted the Trump campaign and worked to disparage Hillary Clinton.

Don’t be fooled. The indictment says the Russian election interference effort started in 2014. It says that the Russians staged rallies for and against Trump after the election and also promoted the Bernie Sanders campaign.

These facts strongly indicate this was a Russian campaign to sow confusion in the United States and to undermine Clinton, who Russian officials expected to win the election.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein noted that the indictment does not allege the Russian operation changed the outcome of the presidential election. This is similar to what the U.S. intelligence community found. It reflects the fact that while this scheme was an egregious assault on our democracy, it was far too small to have any effect on the election.

Consider that while the indictment alleges the Russian operation spent thousands of dollars per month in social media ads and had hundreds of fake Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts. In contrast, the Clinton campaign spent tens of millions on social media ads and had hundreds of staff working on social media. There also were hundreds of pro-Clinton organizations, including labor unions that conducted their own massive social media efforts on behalf of Clinton.

To put this in perspective, last November Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the estimated $100,000 that Russian entities spent in social media ads to affect the 2016 presidential election was “like five one thousandths of one percent” of the $81 million spent by both campaigns on social media ads.

The bottom line from the indictment: no Trump campaign collusion with Russia. The Russians did not hand the election to President Trump.

Now Special Counsel Mueller must turn to real and far more serious instances of election meddling and collusion with the Russians by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Obama administration to damage the Trump campaign. These efforts included misleading the FISA (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) Court to approve electronic surveillance of a Trump campaign staff member and leaking highly classified National Security Agency intelligence to the press.

Although Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election is a serious matter that must be addressed, Democratic abuses to weaponize U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to win a presidential election represent grave threats to our democratic system. There must be indictments of everyone involved in Democratic election meddling as soon as possible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: February 21, 2018 01:06AM

quote Jennifer-Admit it, it's over, RHB - they've got nothing! No collusion between Trump and Russia regarding the election -

They have nothing Yet they have Trumpys who have plead guilty Hum?

My dear you have a severe case of Victory Disease!

Wait till the fat lady is done with the tune dear.

Mueller gonna fry these goons.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: April 08, 2018 09:22AM

It's very much looking like this Mass Indictment is going the way of Fisa Memo,
Nothing burgers again.

How long has this silly rumor been flying now?

Another rabbit hole.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2018 09:44AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Slow to serve Indictments?
Posted by: suncloud ()
Date: April 08, 2018 03:04PM

A few previous conspiracy theories promoted on this website:

-Codex Alimentarius mandates that all food will be irradiated by 2009 (Never mind going to the Codex Alentarius website, and don't just read the standards for yourself).
-All supplements will be illegal in one year (Codex Alimentarius blamed again).
-All schools for natural healing will be closed by the following year.
-Obama-era proposal for new food safety laws will ban backyard gardens, and the feds will come to your house and pull up all your lettuce and tomato plants (Don't bother reading the proposal yourself. More fun to let others tell you what to think). Never mind that Michelle and a bunch of school kids planted the first organic garden on the white house lawn.

Don't you guys ever get tired of being wrong?

And then there was this one:

-Ebola is fake. Everyone dying over there in Africa is a crisis actor paid by (whomever) so we'll be forced to get vaccinated (Forget that there was never an Ebola vaccination). Or whatever Ebola-related conspiracy theory fits our own personal agenda and avoids any semblance of empathy for the suffering of thousands.

Don't you guys ever get tired of being mean?

I guess the Ebola one and the Sandy Hook one really irked me the most, because they both so fiercely and nonsensically villainized so many REAL VICTIMS.

Pretty disgusting side of human nature, at least as we are today.

And is anyone apologizing for all those false allegations? No. It's just don't look back and go on to the next one. It's like a hobby. Forget the potential harm of it.

I'm not a Hillary supporter. But that doesn't make Donald Trump and his crew a bunch of saints. And nothing anyone comes up with on the Clintons will change the fact that we have a very legitimate investigation of our 2016 election that involves attempts by a foreign government to undermine our elections
and may or may not be linked to the Trump campaign and/or Trump's business dealings.

We already do have some actual real indictments of several real members of the Trump campaign. If Mueller isn 't fired over some trumped-up FBI conspiracy charge we'll probably know more and more as we go along, which of course is exactly what the far right is so afraid of and why they would come up with some indictments of their own - real or fake, they don't care. Their team comes first.

Right or wrong. True or false.
Any lie will do, but save the team! That's the way it appears to me.

As far as I'm concerned, if Hillary or anyone else claiming to be a Democrat is involved in a crime that hurts someone else, she or they should pay the piper. If she/they belong to a party that I'm affiliated with, all the more reason for the truth to be told and for an end to their political involvement.

As for any 9000 indictments, I'll give that one a little more credence when I see something more substantial than what you have now, like maybe just one cooperating witness out of those 9000 indictments?

So encouraging that so many people of our younger generation are much more internet-savvy and just aren't buying it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2018 03:15PM by suncloud.

Options: ReplyQuote


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.


Navigate Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Amazon.com for:

Eat more raw fruits and vegetables

Living and Raw Foods Button
1998 Living-Foods.com
All Rights Reserved

USE OF THIS SITE SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE DISCLAIMER.

Privacy Policy Statement

Eat more Raw Fruits and Vegetables