Printable View
This theme is common in right wing circles. Theres no evidence, I haven't seen a smoking gun, Mueller hasn't shown any proof etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
The investigation is happening now in real time. There should be zero expectation that the investigators share with us. Thats not how it works.
Pence is doing a fine job of staying clear of all this. Has any of it touched him yet? I hope this investigation gets both of them gone but that's wishful thinking on my partQuote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
I agree with this. And if/when it happens then it happens. But so far all of the charges, indictments, even the reason given for the raid don't lead me to believe without a shadow of a doubt that they have evidence of collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No. I just disagree with his political views in a very big way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Do you think Milo's black husband thinks Milo is a Nazi? Do you think Milo wants to gas chamber himself for being a gay jew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
https://youtu.be/PTxSAjXpnqo?t=3m10s
Ya, I get that. Its perfectly reasonable too.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
He's a scary man in a lot of ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
But he fundamentally believes in the rule of law and our constitutional democracy. He's also not dangerously impulsive, nor treasonous, I don't believe.
Whatever damage he would do would be far easier to repair than the damage Trump is doing.
Though I would strongly prefer not to put the country through a full impeachment process. We've been through enough. I would prefer a Nixon-style resignation.
Do you mean evidence, or do you mean proof? People have been throwing that word around a lot the last year - "evidence"- when they mean "proof".Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
There is a glut of- even just publicly available- evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As wolf pointed out- there is an actual email which not only included Russia acknowledging that they were trying to get Trump elected, but also showed Trump Jr welcoming their help. The Campaign chair and deputy campaign chair were in regular contact with Russian intelligence during the campaign- to put it mildly that's not normal. (They also weren't the only members of the campaign in touch with Russian government officials) The Russian government DID supply significant aid to the Campaign, and the Trump campaign DID try to give Russia what it most wanted- apparently asking nothing in return.
And the whole time the campaign repeatedly lied to the media, to Congress, and to Federal Investigators about their contact with Russia. Not only that, but they worked tirelessly to convince the country that Russia wasn't actively meddling in the election on their behalf even after being informed that they were by both the US Intelligence agencies AND representatives of the Russian government.
Is that proof of collusion? No. But is it evidence of collusion?
Indisputably
Put another way- probable cause isn't proof of criminal behavior, and indictments aren't proof of criminal behavior.
But it would be inaccurate to say that merely demonstrating probable cause or just issuing an indictment means there's no evidence of a crime. On the contrary, those are proof of the existence of evidence.
So are Federal investigations.
Yeah right. If you don’t agree with time4dumb you’re intellectually inferior.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Did some playful editing with the material Seth Abramson put out for this. Would conservatives be okay if something like this came out after the 2012 election? Would a special counsel investigation still be called a witch hunt?
~
1. Steele Dossier intel says Sergei Lavrov ran a blackmail/money laundering scheme in which Obama got money, blackmail forbearance, and—later—election assistance in exchange for a pro-Russia policy and other perks. Obama then leaked classified intel to Lavrov in the Oval Office.
2. Obama aided his daughter in covering up a clandestine meeting with Kremlin agents—designed to transmit stolen Mitt Romney material from Russia to Obama, by drafting a false statement and forcing Malia to sign it under her own name. Obama knew Malia would be called to testify on the meeting.
3. According to both Emin Agalarov and his father Aras, Obama signed a letter-of-intent to build Obama Tower Moscow using Putin's real estate developer, banker, and permits man in October 2010. Obama has lied about this deal from Day 1.
4. Obama held a secret meeting with Putin at an international conference, during which he discussed sanctions with the Russian strongman. His administration had no intention of acknowledging or admitting the meeting until a journalist happened to find out about it accidentally.
5. Obama admitted discussing U.S.-Russia relations with Putin in Moscow in 2012—then, later on, retracted the claim, saying he "spoke to top officials" but "couldn't say more." His fixer, Cohen, sent a witness to the call to Stormy Daniels' lawyer to kill the story.
6. An eyewitness to the judging process of the 2002 Miss Universe pageant in Puerto Rico has told Special Counsel Bob Mueller that Obama directly and unambiguously attempted to rig the pageant so that Miss Russia would win. Miss Russia was Putin's mistress at the time. She won.
7. Through clandestine negotiations conducted by Holder— lied about before Congress, under oath, by Holder - Obama agreed to unilaterally drop Russia sanctions while he knew from briefings Russia was attacking America. His secret plan was discovered by the DoS post-inauguration.
8. During the presidential campaign, Obama directed his fixer, Cohen, to negotiate a new Obama Tower Moscow deal with the Russians—including direct contact with the Kremlin—and the negotiations went on for months. He lied about this deal (as he did with the 2010 one) from Day 1.
9. Steele's dossier says Obama agreed with the Kremlin in mid-2012—in a meeting with the Kremlin we know Carter Page had, then lied about—to not impose sanctions on Russia.
Despite a 517-5 vote in Congress to impose sanctions, Obama has refused—in violation of the law—to do so.
10. Steele's dossier also says Russian oligarchs systematically overpaid for Obama properties to help develop him as a Russian asset—a claim bolstered by Obama business partner and ex-Russian mobster Felix Sater. Obama lied under oath—Perjury—to hide his relationship with Sater.
11. After George Papadopoulos told Obama — to his face, on March 31, 2012—the Kremlin had authorized him to negotiate a clandestine mid-campaign Obama-Putin meeting, instead of firing him Obama moved him to his Russia policy team and let him edit his first foreign policy speech.
12. During the same meeting Papadopoulos told Obama that he was a Kremlin agent, Obama ordered J.D. Gordon, a top member of his national security team, to change the DNC platform in July to benefit Putin on the Crimea issue. He issued his order after learning about Putin's offer.
13. After learning his Campaign Manager was an unregistered foreign agent who'd colluded illegally with pro-Putin oligarchs, Obama kept using him as a secret advisor for at least 6 months, while publicly claiming Manafort—who lived in Obama Tower—was basically a stranger to him.
14 (addendum). These protocol breaches are a pattern: in April '12, Obama invited the Russian ambassador to be a front-row VIP at a speech in which Obama promised Russia "a good deal" on sanctions. The invite was a protocol breach; the Obama-Kislyak VIP event beforehand was also.
15. After learning that Russia was committing cyberwarfare against the United States, and after saying that Putin watches carefully what he—Obama—says on television, Obama invited Russian hackers to continue committing crimes against the U.S. and said they'd be "richly rewarded."
16. Our intel community agrees Russia interfered with our election to a) sow chaos, and b) do so without getting caught. Despite being told in an August 2012 briefing Russia was attacking us, Obama has denied Russia did so, sows chaos on the issue, and refuses to criticize Putin.
17. While acting under color of authority from his father-in-law, Kushner smuggled Russia's ambassador into Obama's house (Obama Tower) through a back door in December 2012 to discuss establishing a secret Obama-Putin channel using a secure Russian facility—which plan is illegal.
18. Russia's main interest, now—in the matter of its cyber-crimes—is that Congress not find out what it did, with whom, or when. Obama illegally—without asserting executive privilege—directed key Congressional witnesses to refuse to answer Congressional inquiries on the subject.
19. Malia told her dad about her contacts with Kremlin client WikiLeaks, and indeed as soon as WikiLeaks contacted Malia saying it supported Obama's campaign, Obama began inserting praise of WikiLeaks into every stump speech in a transparent attempt to reward and encourage leaks.
19 (addendum). Trump's first effusive, out-of-nowhere praise of WikiLeaks as a noble organization that should be widely supported, and which would be releasing great campaign information, came just 15 minutes—that's not a typo—after WikiLeaks contacted his son for the first time.
20. Bannon says it was accepted in the White House that Malia also told her dad of her meeting with Kremlin agents at Obama Tower and *on the day it happened*—a day Obama was meeting with all U.S. participants in the meeting on the *very same subject* as the meeting (Mitt Romney dirt).
21. (Surely you knew there were more than 20?) After Russia's stateside crimewave, it had no ability to stop *investigation* of its crimes—but Obama did. Obama brought in Holder — he says — to kill the probe, then fired Comey to try to kill it, then used Pelosi to try to kill it.
22. After Russia committed what intelligence experts refer to—in the context of U.S. history—as a "cyber Pearl Harbor," Obama publicly proposed, as a serious policy proposal, that the U.S. intelligence community cooperate with the Kremlin on an important topic: cyber-security
23. After learning Flynn was secretly and illegally negotiating U.S.-Russia policy in 2012, Obama first did nothing, then fired him for another reason, then tried to rehire him, then fired the man prosecuting him, then told him to "stay strong," then said he did nothing wrong.
24. Obama awarded the 2012 Miss Universe pageant to Russia — over 19 other nations—within hours of Russia offering him $20 million and the opportunity to meet Putin (which he immediately tweeted excitedly about). The other 19 nations were given no chance to match Russia's offer.
25. After learning the Agalarovs were Kremlin agents — recipients of an award from Putin; authorized to act as Putin's messengers; no-bid developers for the Kremlin—Obama and his daughter Malia developed a close friendship with Aras and Emin and stayed in touch throughout the campaign.
26. Though he knew of Manafort's ties to the Kremlin via pro-Putin oligarchs, and though Manafort offered—in-context, a huge red flag for criminal intent—to work for free, Obama hired him and his equally conflicted partner Gates as Campaign Manager and Deputy Campaign Manager.
27. Papadopoulos told Greek media he met Obama *after* meeting Kremlin agent Mifsud but *before* Obama named him to the NatSec team. Obama denies it. If true, Obama knew Papadopoulos had met Russians when he chose him to be the one NatSec team member he personally vouched for.
27. (addendum). Papadopoulos' claim is bolstered by his accuracy in describing his campaign role—versus Obama's deceit on the same topic—and that eyewitnesses say that when Papadopoulos told Obama he was aiding the Kremlin on March 31, 2012, Obama didn't react or shut him down.
28. If you've been reading this feed a long time, you know how much evidence there is—including Obama's own words—bolstering the claim the Kremlin is blackmailing him over conduct at the Ritz Moscow. Obama's lies on this topic constitute collusion with the Kremlin's narrative.
Mike Pompeo just said if Mueller or Rosenstein is fired he won't take the job of Secretary of State.
"This train has left the station. There's nothing this President can do to stop it."
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/stat...35473396330496
Not really familiar with this politician but I like him.
Within minutes of his firing in May, former FBI Director James Comey received a call from John Kelly, then the head of the Department of Homeland Security and now the White House chief of staff.
According to Comey’s account, which is set to appear in his highly anticipated forthcoming memoir, Kelly was “emotional” over the manner in which Comey was let go. The then-FBI director was in California at the time, speaking to FBI agents in Los Angeles, and only found out that he was out of a job when he saw the news break on TV.
Kelly, Comey recalls, said he was “sick” about the situation and “intended to quit” in protest. Kelly “said he didn’t want to work for dishonorable people,” referring specifically to President Donald Trump, who appeared to be upset at the FBI’s persistent investigation into his campaign’s possible collusion with Russian officials.
According to sources, Comey writes in his book that he encouraged Kelly to remain in his post, saying “this president,” more than his predecessors, needed people of principle and integrity around him.
This was great. Thanks for posting. It also reminded me of a few things I had forgottenQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Both @SethAbramson and @emptywheel are worth following regarding this investigation.
Yes, I should have been using proof instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...erview-n865421
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office and President Donald Trump’s legal team are now proceeding with strategies that presume a presidential interview will likely not take place as part of the Russia investigation, after months of talks between the two sides collapsed earlier this week, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
Now, according to two sources, Mueller’s team may be able to close the obstruction probe more quickly as they will not need to prepare for the interview or follow up on what the president says.
:popcorn:
Pretty sure anyone but Hillary as President is scary for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Get on some heavy medication. It'll make the world a less scary place for someone in your condition.
Three sources familiar with the investigation said the findings Mueller has collected on Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice include: His intent to fire former FBI Director James Comey; his role in the crafting of a misleading public statement on the nature of a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians; Trump’s dangling of pardons before grand jury witnesses who might testify against him; and pressuring Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
“Sources”Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Me, myself, and I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
That propaganda machine is working. It has Americans questioning "sources". Like deepthroat. He was just a source. No one should have listened to him
Nixon was innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Good read here, looking forward to the book.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7e1ce3ca8214
I saw this and had to read it like 3 times- having a completely different reaction each time. This paragraph is the ultimate political Rorschach test right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The one thing that is certain- the messaging war is in full swing on both sides right now. Someone leaked that information expressly to make it harder for Trump and his allies to get rid of Rosenstein or Mueller, and- in case he does remove one of them- to give Congress good reason to immediately subpoena that report.
But it also begs one big question:
Why isn't Mueller compelling testimony from Trump?
Trump's lawyers can argue all they want that a sitting President can't be subpoenaed, but nothing I've ever seen in case law would come close to suggesting that you can't subpoena a sitting President in a criminal matter. SCOTUS has already ruled that you can subpoena a President in civil matters- it's a massive stretch to argue that the President is immune to the criminal version given the borderline reverence the Courts place on the administration of justice. And off the top of my head the argument runs counter to at least two of the US v Nixon cases and at least two Executive Privilege cases. And issuing a subpoena would immediately check mate Trump and his allies. Taking any action against Mueller, Sessions, or Rosenstein at that point would be blatant, to say the least.
Having said that:
1) Maybe Mueller is planning on releasing a report that largely absolves the President of obstruction. In that case, there's really no need for the interview, and if he gets that report out soon Trump is FAR less likely to close the collusion investigation.
Counter argument: If that were the case- why would they have working so hard over the last several months to make the interview happen?
2) Maybe Mueller is planning on releasing a report that accuses the President of obstruction, and he wanted the interview to make sure he was presenting as clear a case as possible but genuinely doesn't need additional evidence to make that case.
Counter argument: Mueller is well aware that every day his job and investigation are in jeopardy- why keep putting this off when the risks were so high?
3) Maybe Mueller is planning on releasing a report that accuses the President of obstruction, and he genuinely felt like the case needed that interview. But he also understands that recent developments have made Trump even more likely to take drastic action imminently, and he's expediting the release to force Trump into a position where he can no longer reasonably fire Rosenstein, Sessions, or Mueller. And a guilty report would do that.
Counter argument: releasing a functionally impotent report would probably do more to empower Trump to shut things down than releasing nothing at all
This is interesting.Quote:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- in President Donald Trump's crosshairs -- was summoned to the White House for a meeting with the president on Thursday, amid recent calls from some of Trump’s supporters for his ouster over his role in the expanding Russia investigation.
Rosenstein, who is Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ deputy and who was appointed by Trump, was spotted leaving the West Wing on Thursday afternoon, though a White House official played down the meeting's significance.
“Rod Rosenstein met with the president at the White House regarding routine department business,” the official said.
The meeting, though, seemed to have been arranged quickly. Rosenstein had been scheduled to introduce Sessions during an afternoon event at the Justice Department. But the emcee of that event announced that Rosenstein had been “called away on another matter.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp
Reading:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://media0.giphy.com/media/4VNenrimFIWje/giphy.gif
Followed by emotional outbursts:
https://media0.giphy.com/media/40ucFoJJO54dO/giphy.gif
And almost certainly false. (The part about routine business anyway)Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This helps explain it I think. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-i-l...robert-muellerQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Someone's already posted about the tapes, but it just struck me: What the fuck is on those recordings that has trump advisors so worried. Is this the new "Nixon tapes". Got to hand it to trump. He's really doing a wonderful homage to Watergate.Quote:
“We heard he had some proclivity to make tapes,” said one Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. “Now we are wondering, who did he tape? Did he store those someplace where they were actually seized? . . . Did they find his recordings?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...800_story.html
I honestly can't imagine that he would ever have taped Trump or himself talking about Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The one thing I could see is him recording a Trump campaign official talking about something very illegal as a way to hold it over their head later
I'd hope he's smart enough not to record incriminating conversations. What's telling is that trump allies are sweating. What the hell have they been discussing with Cohen?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Eh I wouldn't read too much into it. They're sweating because every unknown variable right now is terrifying when you're in their positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
HAHAHA. It really could come down to something that plain stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Who knows. I'm making no predictions either way. I love to see them sweat though and Fortybox (judging from his tweet below your post) seems to think that these recordings are quite damaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
No one is sweating except you.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
No one is terrified except you.
Please. Get some medical help control your emotions.
You sure talk about me a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
LOL - so is PB now a stalker too since he replied to your post? Please get some help..."sweetie."Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
He's definitely a stalker. The person behind the PB account is a sick mother fucker. I have grave reservations about people here knowing much about me IRL. A few of these folks are fucked up and there's no telling what they would do that would leave the PC and enter into one's life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Fortybox is one of those people, FYIQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
They'd only know about you based on what you decide to tell. Unless you are alleging a data breach or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
New rule: 3 posts means you're mad. You must play GS to post on these forums and replies to people on a forum designed for replies to people is considered stalking.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
3 posts because so mad!!!1one11
I play GS
I stalked myself because I replied!!
Yes, exactly. I'm saying that we all chit chat here and sometimes fight or have some laughs or whatever. We could even find new friends IRL from a common love of GSIV and bullshitting on the PC but I would not think that it's prudent for anyone here to know me personally because of a psycho fuck like PB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Like I said, people only know as much as you tell them. I'll ask again though...are you alleging PB is somehow stealing information about you? That's a serious allegation to be making.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's the problem with the liberal mindset. Always a victim.
I don't believe I've said anything like that at all. I'll be more clear though. I had not considered hacking as a threat from one of these guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
So you think PB is a big meanie head? Fine. Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No. I never said that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
What are you doing here? Did I offend you by calling PB a sick fuck?
There are a few people here whose posts constantly have me trying to figure out if they're being intellectually dishonest and intentionally distorting and misinterpreting what someone said because they think it's clever, or if they genuinely struggle with reading comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
And it's really tough to tell which one of those constitutes giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
Edgelords trying to be funny but failing miserably.
Funny, most of us think the same about you. Or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You, parkbandit, methais, wrathbringer, fortybox != mostQuote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Speaking of intellectually dishonest...Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
There's no doubt she came back to the forums to pick a fight. It's obvious PB and others rubbed her the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
She literally will google up a topic and then come back as an "expert" to cause fighting by giving a far left response. She does the same thing on LNET by purposefully saying something outrageous (typically about Trump) just to incite response when nobody is even talking about her, politics, etc.
Is that in order of your hatred? So at least you don't hate me the most right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://media0.giphy.com/media/10SPpae7SQxpe/giphy.gif
No, just seeking clarification of your very vivid insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Hate? No. I don't hate anyone on the PC. The right word would probably be annoying, like a mosquito. Yeah, you're probably the least annoying of that bunch, but still too trollish for my tastes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
@17:50 Natasha Bertrand discusses Trump's apparent refusal to be interviewed:
"Mueller has enough to finish his obstruction report without actually having to interview the president. ... And one of the most striking things about it is that they apparently have evidence that they were dangling bribes to grand jury witnesses."
yikes! :shocked:
Yeah...this was reported on a few weeks back. Dowd did it, apparently. Which is...astounding.
Not only is that clearly obstruction (Witness tampering 101 for Presidential dummies!), but those Pardons would be clearly unconstitutional.
I've heard about it but what's the actual proof they did it?
Nothing except reporting. It was picked up in various forms by different outlets. At least three outlets independently verified it, if I recall correctly. Shortly after I speculated that Manafort was waiting on a pardon the other day, I found some additional reporting alleging that's exactly what his current strategy was. So that would add weight to the claim. Though I do still have a hard time imagining Dowd doing something like that.
Having said that, can you think of another way to explain the motive behind Manafort's otherwise inexplicable legal strategy right now?
It's also likely why he Pardoned Libby for lying to the FBI and obstructing Justice during the Planar (sp?) Case.
God I wish that were true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
I'd have about $900 extra in my wallet every month if it were.
Mueller isn't going to use news reports as evidence. Either Dowd was talking about it and multiple people confirmed it or Mueller got his hands on some emails/communications between Trump's lawyers and Manafort.
No he's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
But he has both Flynn and Gates as cooperating witnesses. Flynn and Manafort were the ones reportedly offered the pardons. So if it's true, Flynn would have given direct testimony.
And it's certainly conceivable that Manafort told Gates about it as well.
As for Dowd- if he DID do this he would at least be smart enough not to talk about it. He's liable for conspiracy to obstruct at that point, and the crime-fraud exception would definitely be in play.
Now you have me thinking... Is that why he left maybe? The excuse given never made much sense to me, and it was around the time the Pardon story broke.
lol @ all of Trump's lawyers getting nailed for one thing or another. And he wonders why he can't find people to represent him.
Court hearing this morning at SDNY regarding the warrants served to Cohen.
F5 Friday the 13th.
What's it like to live your life scared of everything, including words on a screen?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What's it like to feel so threatened by other opinions that you spend an hour or two a day replying to them with nothing but person insults to make yourself feel better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You realize that like 80% of the active PC population is in this thread right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Does this mean you won or lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Why would I feel threatened? I don't go making posts about feeling threatened. Meanwhile, you and cwolff constantly make posts about how scared you are of everything and being drama queens in general. Only real difference is cwolff is like the mall girl drama queen, and you're the "I'd like to speak to the manager." drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I wouldn't know. Perhaps you should tell us. It's been a while since you bumped your "Should I do gay porn?" thread or called someone a nigger. You did call asians slants yesterday though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offtopic Folder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Now see- that comes across as threatened.
Just because you make some retarded claim doesn't make it so. I know that's really hard for you to accept, but sooner or later you're going to have to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
We already know you feel threatened, because you post every day about how scared you are, so no one has to make anything up about that.
What exactly am I threatened by and why? Be specific.
He's doing the right thing by trying to get a restraining order on that warrant, but it's almost assuredly not going to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It's ambiguous. Just like time4funz rules on posting on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I see time4funz as the "I want to see the manager to complain about my $0.50 coupon even though the coupon expired" drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
In the whole scheme of things, does the $0.50 matter?? No, but she has to be right (even though she is wrong!). She'll move mountains to get her way and that is all this about. Her candidate lost and she will do everything in her power to remove the opposition from power...anything. She can't even acknowledge she is in a better position now because of Trump. It must suck feeling like you're a victim all the time and just hating the world.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...gerhaircut.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
HahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
A new variable has been introduced into the game here:
Trump retained a lawyer Wed night who showed up to the Cohen hearing today to fight elements of the warrant.
Trump and Cohen's lawyers are both fighting for the right to review the evidence before the Prosecutors do because they suspect some of it is covered by attorney-client privilege. Trump's new lawyer was able to get delay so they would have a chance to review the new filing the SDNY Attorney's office filed in Court today. They get until Sunday night to review it and prepare their response. Meanwhile SDNY is pushing back and claiming that Cohen's lawyer is trying to use attorney-client privilege as "a sword" to stop seizure of evidence. (The whole sword vs shield metaphor is one of the legal field's favorites)
It got REALLY Circus-y when Stormy Daniel's lawyer showed up and asked to be included so he could basically fight to make as many of the documents public as possible- citing the fact that some of that material invariably involved Daniels.
So this might actually work. Candidly, Cohen doesn't have a ton of leg to stand on with this. Odds are the evidence presented for the warrant was overwhelming, and there's no way this wasn't done 1000% by the book. And under normal circumstances Trump wouldn't either because his communications were actually a part of the warrant. (There's a relatively recent 6th Circuit decision regarding taint teams brought by a third party in an attorney's office raid that ruled for the third party and punched a moderately sized hole in the taint team concept. Being a third party here makes your case much stronger)
BUT when you introduce the President- suddenly this case has actual Constitutional implications. I'm guessing they'll end up appointing a magistrate Judge to oversee the taint process, but regardless of what happens the Trump legal team will appeal any ruling that falls short of what they want. It would be extremely difficult for an Appellate Court to refuse to take the case, and also very difficult for SCOTUS to refuse to take the case. So at the very least- this builds in a solid delay.
Can you explain that?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Another libtard republican I guess.Quote:
Tillis, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called it "critically important" to the country that the special counsel conclude his investigation without any perceptions that it was shut down by the executive branch.
"If the president actually removes the special counsel without good cause, it would likely result in swift, bipartisan backlash and shake the country’s faith in the integrity of our legal system," Tillis writes.
"The result would not be good for the American people, the Republican Party or the president," he added.
ROFL
Cohen didn't bother showing up to Court today (The Judge was not pleased), and his legal team was arguing that they should be allowed to review the evidence first because of attorney-client privilege concerns with his other clients. When asked who his other clients were, aside from Trump, they couldn't answer. :lol:
They had to adjourn until 4 so they could go talk to Cohen and find out.
Apparently Cohen doesn't do much legal work at all. Also...if he never discussed stormy daniels with trump then information about that isn't covered by atty/client anyway.
Protections are supposed to be a shield for your rights- they're not supposed to be used to undermine the rights of others or the legitimate state interest of ensuring justice. You see this a lot in civil rights cases- religious freedom is one of the more recent examples. Basically people go in and claim they have a right to not have their religion interfered with, and that gives them the right to discriminate. (So instead of using that right to protect from encroachment, they're using it to attack other people's rights) It popped up a lot in early housing discrimination cases too- arguing that freedom of association means they shouldn't have to live with black people, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
What I assume the Attorney's office was pointing out was that attorney-client privilege is supposed to protect the client, not the attorney. Given that Cohen's legal team couldn't name a single specific client whose rights might be jeopardized, it was pretty clear that they were trying to use the 6th amendment to stop what SDNY would deem a legitimate search and seizure warrant/the legitimate administration of justice against Cohen based on protections that exist for the best interests of Cohen's clients.
I doubt Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein will be a civil servant much longer. It wouldn't be smart for Trump to fire him, but I don't think Rosenstein will be around a week from now.
Apparently Cohen is having a hard time finding qualified representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Apparently when Trump's new attorney said:
The courtroom snickered because they put the public's interest behind Trump's :lol:Quote:
“These interests are so weighty … this is of most concern to him, the public a close second, and anyone in this country who’s ever hired a lawyer.”
I will not be surprised if Trump fires him today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
It is Friday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I agree. Trump has very few moves in front of him right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
He's going to Pardon Libby for obstruction and lying to the FBI to send a message to Manafort and Cohen that he'll save them if they stay quiet. But honestly- he's not going to issue any Pardons. It would dramatically increase the political pressure on him and make him look guilty to the whole country. Plus the Courts would likely overrule the Pardons (provided they can find someone with standing to sue. I realized today that the plaintiffs in the 2-3 cases I've read involving Presidential pardons were all the Pardonees)
He's not going to touch Mueller because the reaction has been so intense- including from Congressional Republicans. Plus, he's probably realizing by now that hitting Mueller wouldn't really shut things down. (Plus Congress technically could bring back the Independent Counsel law and hire him if they wanted)
Rosenstein is a much easier target. Most people have no idea who is he, media on the right is in smear campaign mode, and most folks don't realize Rosenstein's blessing is needed for a lot of what Mueller's team does.
And they know that obstruction report is coming out soon. Rosenstein (or the person overseeing Mueller) is the only one who can make it public.
That's typically when you would do it. Though with Comey's interview on Sunday, they may figure it's a really bad time to introduce new evidence that Comey may be right about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I don't agree. Mueller could leak it to the press or he could have a member of congress read it on the floor. Doesn't matter what Trump does, this report will be released.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Mueller leak? If he were the leaking type- we'd likely know by now. And everything that I've read, everything I've seen tells me that he's 100% by the book. I do hope that I'm wrong on this one though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
What could happen is Congress could subpoena the report from the DoJ. But that depends on Democrats being in power in at least one House of Congress as no Republican committee head is likely to sign off on that subpoena.
And even then, there are stalling tactics and delays that are available to the Executive that could hamper the process long enough. And that's just the obstruction report- that's not even going into the damage a Rosenstein replacement could do to the rest of the probe. They could come in and immediately cut down the scope of the investigation to exclude anything about the Trump campaign.
The obstruction report is important, but it's mostly important because it provides cover for Mueller and Rosenstein (if it gets out soon enough). The Russia collusion probe is the thing that actually matters, in my mind.
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine has launched an investigation into claims surrounding an alleged multi-million dollar lobbying contract that names one of US President Donald Trump's most influential fundraisers, Elliott Broidy.
The 12-page document, which appears to have been signed by Broidy, outlines his role as providing "political advocacy" on behalf of a now sanctioned Russian bank, VTB.
The deal was apparently dated June 12, 2014, just weeks before VTB Bank was blacklisted by the United States and European Union as a key Kremlin asset following Russia's invasion of Crimea. Russian President Vladimir Putin is guest of honour at VTB Bank's investor conference every year.
The document raises serious questions about whether Broidy is in breach of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law that has gained prominence following the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller into foreign meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his aide Rick Gates have both been charged as a result of their work in Ukraine.
:popcorn:
A major donor with close ties to the White House resigned on Friday as deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee after the revelation that he had agreed to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model who became pregnant during an affair.
The deal was arranged by President Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen.
CNN Reporting tonight that Rosenstein did consult with an ethics adviser about whether or not he needed to recuse himself for the Probe:
If Rosenstein were fired, technically Mueller could bring suit against Trump for it. Having the ethics adviser's approval to head the probe makes it much less likely that Trump will be able to justify his actions. (And would add weight to the obstruction probe)Quote:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein continues to oversee special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after consulting with a career ethics adviser at the Justice Department about his ability to oversee the Russia probe, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.
For nearly a year, legal experts and journalists have questioned why Rosenstein has not stepped aside from overseeing Mueller's investigation given that he was part of the dramatic firing of FBI Director James Comey. That fact has more recently served as ammunition to attack Rosenstein's credibility by allies of President Donald Trump.
But CNN has now learned that Rosenstein has consulted with the ethics adviser over the course of the investigation on whether he needs to recuse himself, and he has followed that individual's advice -- a fact which has not been previously reported and offers a more fulsome explanation for how he has continued to oversee Mueller's work. The source did not specify the number of conversations, timing, or the details of the advice.
Having said that- I honestly can't imagine that Mueller would actually do that. The real question would be whether or not Congress would have standing if they wanted to sue.
Candidly, my background in law is almost entirely academic. Procedural things like standing tend to flummox me.
Are ANY of the people around Trump not corrupt slime balls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Looks like the DoJ is confirming that Cohen IS under criminal investigation:
He's apparently been under investigation for months. The Mueller referral was just a second investigatory element.Quote:
Here, Cohen is not a criminal defense attorney, has no cases with the [U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York], and is being investigated for criminal conduct that largely centers on his personal business dealings," the filing reads. The filing added that Cohen has "exceedingly few clients and a low volume of potentially privileged communications.
Also Trump and Cohen talked on the phone today. Maybe I'm wrong- maybe Trump actually WILL use his Pardon power.
https://i.imgur.com/WrbuXcs.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Quote:
The inspector general said that when investigators asked whether he had instructed aides to provide information in October 2016 to a reporter with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. McCabe said he did not authorize the disclosure and did not know who did.
But Mr. McCabe did approve the F.B.I.’s contact with the reporter, according to the review.
The newspaper article delved into a dispute between F.B.I. and Justice Department officials over how to proceed in an investigation into the financial dealings of the Clinton family’s foundation. It revealed a sensitive meeting during which Justice Department officials declined to authorize subpoenas or grand jury activity.
The inspector general also concluded that Mr. McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of the ongoing investigation in the manner described in the report violated media policy of the F.B.I. and Justice Department and constituted misconduct.
In a statement, Mr. McCabe said that he had full authorization to share this information with the media. Mr. McCabe also said that he did not intentionally mislead investigators.
More...
We need to have a talk about spelling.
It's slimeball, not slime ball.
And it's low-life, not low life.
It doesn't matter much, of course, unless you're publishing it to millions.
Um the juvenile-in-chief just went to Twitter:
Translation: :ranting:Quote:
DOJ just issued the McCabe report - which is a total disaster. He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey - McCabe is Comey!! No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!
Edit: Drat Lost to Clyde!
The report says that Comey is great! And McCabe is not so great! McCabe seems to be at odds with Comey, not, as Trump asserts, under Comey's control.
Quote:
In a letter submitted by McCabe’s counsel after reviewing a draft of the report, McCabe argues that “the OIG should credit Mr. McCabe’s account over Director Comey’s” and complains that the report “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible for at least three key reasons ...”
More...
You're forgetting that 90% of the people that will see it don't even know the difference between your vs. you're, or there vs. they're vs. their. Pretty sure most of the world won't notice that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
SO...
1) Trump's personal lawyer goes to Court today to fight the review of evidence that was seized from him this week after a no-knock warrant
2) We find out that the lawyer has been under criminal investigation for months, and there have been previously unknown warrants executed against him
3) We learn that the President had to hire 3 MORE lawyers to try to fight the evidence because he's terrified there's information in there that would get him in a lot of trouble
4) A day or two after having to resign as a Deputy Finance chair for the RNC, we find out that Cohen actually helped negotiate a $1.6m payout to a Playboy Bunny mistress of one of the other Deputy Finance chairs- who has now resigned over the scandal
5) The President pardons someone who was convinced of obstruction and lying to the FBI (Rule of law!) presumably to send the message to his indicted former campaign chair and soon-to-be indicted personal lawyer that he's ready to obstruct justice further and Pardon them
6) Several House members threaten impeachment because the President is considering firing the person overseeing the investigation into him and his campaign- because he's trying to head off an obstruction report that's about to come out (plus the collusion report)
7) The former head of the FBI- whose firing initiated the Special Counsel investigation into the President- is about to go on a book tour and is likening the President to a mob boss, so the RNC is on a PR offensive to smear him while the President is calling him a slimeball via Twitter
8) We find out about the third payoff deal between Trump, Cohen, and the Enquirer (and parent company)- deals that have triggered investigation into campaign finance violations for everyone involved. And this one is about a child he apparently had with a housekeeper a few years back.
...
Oh, and we're on the verge of war in Syria, a trade war in China, and we're facing trillion dollar annual deficits.
Does...that about cover the news cycle for the first half of the day?
How's that winning going?
ROFL
SDNY threw some serious shade at Cohen today:
Quote:
A court filing did not detail what Cohen is under investigation for.
But the filing contains the first details released by the Justice Department on the searches, which covered Cohen's residence, hotel room, office, safety deposit boxes and two cell phones. Previous search warrants allowed New York federal prosecutors to search multiple email accounts, the filing said. In them, they found that Cohen had done "little to no legal work, and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump."
The prosecutors assert that they have confidence that any seized material would not fall under the significant amount of attorney-client privilege that Cohen has claimed. They said Cohen has told at least one witness that his only client was Trump.
The prosecutors noted Cohen had personally not turned over any documents to Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. Initially, Mueller had requested some records from Cohen while he was with the Trump family company — a position he held for about a decade — yet dropped the request after Cohen pushed back. Mueller's office referred the case about his business dealings to New York but hasn't been involved since, the Manhattan prosecutors said.
It's FRIDAYYYYY!!!! Here comes the liberal army of dumb!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/mf6ZyGsmBpggo/giphy.gifhttps://media2.giphy.com/media/gaCPVrrLy3HRm/giphy.gifhttps://media0.giphy.com/media/FaXQTe5Eu47kc/giphy.gif
Just noticed that Cohen got his law degree from Cooley. This explains everything.
Yeah...that's the single most fitting thing I've heard all day.
Did you catch this from the NY Times?
Quote:
Prosecutors argued that the previously seized emails revealed that Mr. Cohen was “performing little to no legal work, and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump.” They said their investigation was focused on Mr. Cohen’s business dealings, not his work as a lawyer.
But it is difficult to extract Mr. Cohen from his work for Mr. Trump. For more than a decade, Mr. Trump has unleashed Mr. Cohen on his foes — investigative journalists, business rivals and potential litigants. And the New York search warrant makes clear that the authorities are interested in his unofficial role in the campaign.
Prosecutors demanded all communication with the campaign — and in particular two advisers, Corey Lewandowski and Hope Hicks, according to two people briefed on the warrants.
Prosecutors also seized recordings of conversations that Mr. Cohen had secretly made, but he told people in recent days that he did not tape his conversations with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen frequently taped conversations with adversaries and opposing lawyers, according to the two people briefed.
Michael Cohen: I have never been to Prague in my life.
Bob Mueller: I have receipts.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.mccla...208870264.html
I'm betting they already have some of those communications, at least the ones from Hope Hicks.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Likely. Or at least other communications that directly referenced those communications and indicated strong likelihood that they contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Seth AbramsonQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
@SethAbramson
BREAKING: From Day 1 this feed has been about the Steele Dossier—and tonight the *one* allegedly false item in the Dossier now appears to *also* be true. So the current status of the Dossier is that much of it has been proven true and none of it dispelled.
So anyone wanna come talk about how the Dossier has been proven to be completely false, how there's no evidence of collusion with Russia, and how Trump is the real victim here?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
"I may have committed light treason."Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Narrator: He did in fact commit treason.
That's great. Is this from that Jason Bateman show?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It's called Arrested Development you heathen.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's the one! HAHAHA Great show, fantastic quoteQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The lawyers, Barry Zuckerkorn and Bob Loblaw, accurately portray Trump's defense team.
Cohen published his passport as proof he'd never been to the Czech Republic. Didn't Roger Stone do this too?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://youtu.be/jnKYzoqASsw
Great minds think alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
If you honestly didn't know, we did have a pretty serious security breach on these forums. If you use your password from here anywhere else you should change it there immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Oh shoot. My pw is KiraGrandeSux and I use it everywhere. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Not my point unless you allege PB did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Cohen did for sure. I think Stone said he would.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If you travel by train from Germany to Prague, you don't get a passport stamp though.
Cohen to get nailed for perjury.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/19/p...mpression=true
So we can expect a perjury indictment for Hillary too then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8e2ujXe8g
Already fact checked for you- The FBI found no evidence of any attempt to obstruct the investigation. Perjury would be a part of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Also, if you're going to get that worked up over a private email server and not bank fraud, wire fraud, illegal campaign contributions, potentially lying under oath about secret meetings in Prague with Russian officials, potential secret meetings in Prague with Russian officials, shady bank loans with purported Russian mobsters, and quite possibly conspiracy to obstruct justice....then I'm going to go out on a limb and say your motivation here isn't your sense of justice.
IIRC they did her a solid and didn’t put her under oath for her interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
1. You don't get put under oath for an FBI interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
2. You don't need to be under oath during an FBI interview to be charged with perjury.
Cohen: I am the subject of target of a federal Investigstion
Trump: I am also bigly a subject of one or more federal investigations
Cohen: let us discuss it on our phones even though it makes our lawyers cry
Trump: legal advice is cuck
Cohen: also I am recording this
I made the same mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I thought President Trump was saying bigly... but he's actually saying big league.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The author of this article seems to think that all of this Russia stuff end in the curtain being lifted on the trump organization as a cheap, shady little business that gets busted for its financial crimes.Quote:
Cohen, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka monetized their willingness to sign contracts with people rejected by all sensible partners. Even in this, the Trump Organization left money on the table, taking a million dollars here, five million there, even though the service they provided—giving branding legitimacy to blatantly sketchy projects—was worth far more. It was not a company that built value over decades, accumulating assets and leveraging wealth. It burned through whatever good will and brand value it established as quickly as possible, then moved on to the next scheme.
...
Of course Trump is raging and furious and terrified. Prosecutors are now looking at his core. Cohen was the key intermediary between the Trump family and its partners around the world; he was chief consigliere and dealmaker throughout its period of expansion into global partnerships with sketchy oligarchs. He wasn’t a slick politico who showed up for a few months. He knows everything, he recorded much of it, and now prosecutors will know it, too. It seems inevitable that much will be made public. We don’t know when. We don’t know the precise path the next few months will take. There will be resistance and denial and counterattacks. But it seems likely that, when we look back on this week, we will see it as a turning point. We are now in the end stages of the Trump Presidency.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ump-presidency
What a lovely fantasy land of charges. I was specifically talking about perjury under oath at Congressional hearings. Proven 100% true. Then there is destruction of evidence under subpoena which I am pretty sure is at least obstruction of justice which is what you are so orgasmic to lynch Trump over, proven 100% true regarding Hillary. So we have real crimes with 100% proof of evidence against Hillary vs your rabidly spewed list of so far unsubstantiated claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
There is an old saying in my part of the world: "Shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster." Right now, the Hillary hand is full of shit and your Trump hand is full of wishes, rainbows and unicorns.
Can you provide some links to the 100% true facts that you've listed? The reason I ask is because I think you're wrong, but am willing to check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Do you own research you lazy prick. She admitted to destroying e-mails and multiple agencies have said so. Comey himself said so. Now, in sworn testimony she said she never mishandled classified data. Comey himself said she did. When you destroy evidence and lie to congress, that means you are guilty of destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice and perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I just fact checked these ridiculous claims- and several more- in another thread. Rockstar doesn't bother with facts or citations- which is why he's so easy to disprove. When you do, he either stops responding, or he starts shrieking like a harpy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Keep in mind- this is the same person who posted that bogus judicial watch study on "voter fraud" and then ignored the fact checks he got as a result.
For reference:
Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
How about YOU do some research?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
If you're going to throw a temper tantrum like a small child because someone asked you to provide citations of the insane things you've been spouting off- then you most certainly do not have any business arguing about politics with adults- especially when your bogus claims were just proven incorrect in another thread a few days ago.
And that's not even bringing up the fake voter fraud thread you created based on a Judicial Watch study that has already been proven to be abjectly false and intentionally misleading.
If you had any respect for truth, you'd realize how extremely embarrassing your performance is.
From your own Leftist fact checking baby this one is about the e-mail timeline and their destruction while under subpoena: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/th...intons-emails/Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
And on the issue of mishandling classified information: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/cl...d-information/
The only person here throwing a tantrum is you. You get dismiss dissenting facts faster than an addict denying their addiction in the face of an intervention. Nothing I have said is insane and most all of it ha even been said by your paragon of news integrity CNN.
Just because you don't like the Judicial Watch study does not mean that it's wrong. Sorry, facts don't care about your feelings, tons of names are registered to vote illegally and we need to clean that up.
If you had any respect period, you would just shut up. OH, and have you gotten citizenship for that family member you have been illegally sheltering for decades yet?
And as to your huge amount of "fact checking" you really should work on actually doing some fact checking. There is evidence to support misrepresentation of FISA warrant info to the judge. Hillary's lawyer was involved with destruction of e-mails under subpoena which is a crime. Not under investigation does not make it excusable. Your omniscience in knowing why the FBI did or did not do anything is astounding and your faith in them in the face of multiple, repeated and potentially systemic failures is admirable yet misplaced. Destruction of voluminous amounts of evidence under subpoena is not accidental and does not pass the every man test for lacking intent. Drafting a public statement that is a few paragraphs long should not take more than a few days at most from someone so "experienced" as Comey.
So, in the end, you are again dismissive of things that don't agree with your opinion and then continue to exude a level of elitist arrogance usually reserved for dog breeders and art snobs. Of course, I am waiting with baited breath to hear how you own a Westminster and Eukanuba champion and are an expert on art who consults at the Louvre.
Cohen has to disclose his clients on Monday to a federal judge or else lose attorney-client privileges.
But what does Alex Jones say?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Okay so first- there are only two kinds of people who throw tantrums and start name calling when someone asks them to provide some evidence for their claims: liars and fools. Go ahead and pick one- they both have their merits in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
And you know what else is embarrassing? When you cite a fact checking article but neglect to actually read it.
The following paragraph is from your own fact checking article:
Quote:
In December 2014, after the work-related emails were preserved, Mills told Platte River Networks – which at the time was managing Clinton’s private server – that Clinton “decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days.” Mills instructed the PRN employee — who was not identified — “to modify the e-mail retention policy” on Clinton’s server “to reflect this change,” the FBI said.
But the PRN employee mistakenly did not make the retention-policy change and did not delete the old emails until sometime between March 25 and March 31, even though Mills had sent PRN an email on March 9 that mentioned the committee’s request to preserve emails.
The PRN employee who deleted the emails was a recipient of Mills’ message. However, the employee told the FBI that “he had an ‘oh shit’ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server containing Clinton’s e-mails.”
And this is from the fact checking article I already cited in the other thread a few days ago:
Clinton had nothing to do with those emails being deleted when they did, and the FBI cleared her of that. I promise you that you are not smarter nor more knowledgeable than the FBI's investigators. You're not smarter nor more knowledgeable than my dog when she's unconscious frankly.Quote:
...there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:
On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.
On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files.
And just to remind you:
You are engaging in a willfully misleading scope shift here. You were accusing Clinton of criminal activity. You did not accuse her of mishandling classified information. You just shifted there right now thinking no one would notice. To be clear: they are not the same thing.Quote:
To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Finally, I didn't say the Judicial Watch study was wrong because it was from Judicial Watch- I actually outlined for you exactly why it was intentionally misleading. You want to talk about ignoring information you don't like? I notice that you didn't bother reading it or acknowledging it in any way.
Just to remind you- yet again:
Sorry my dear, but you aren't smarter than a 5th grader.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
So, since you do both and quite handily in this reply, I assume you are calling yourself out. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Your willful ignorance and blatant disregard for facts clearly shows that no matter what is presented to you, you won't change. But we knew that you are retarded so this is nothing new.
He says....ignoring the facts that just proved him wrong. Shortly after insulting someone for daring to ask for citations behind his outlandish claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Hillary lost. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
https://youtu.be/72yhjIRlu9kQuote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Has this heated up yet?
Damn straight it has. From the WH receiving warnings about Michael Flynn and firing Yates to Comeys book and interview tonight I'd say yes, it's heated right the hell up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So basically, no. It is just sensationalist bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I know you're gonna troll. I am surprised at the deep level of self delusion though. Obviously this Russia investigation is a big fucking deal. People are going to jail, trumps world is rocked and the country could come apart at the seams when he goes nuclear. So ya, the investigation has heated up. It sure as fuck isn't slowing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
In my view, you're the one that is trolling. Sorry, ain't shit going on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Sounds a lot like you're saying, "I know you are but what am I" because you don't have shit to say but still want to talk. You're a god damn retard if you think nothing's going on here and I know you're not retarded. Whatever's driving you is a different problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Perfect troll post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The only thing driving you is a mountain of butthurt from hillary's spectacular flop on election night.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is correct + extra butthurt from not being used to time4fun’s new fun fancy OHD yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Extra butthurt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
This just in: Nancy Pelosi fake news email written by time4fun!
Nancy is pulsing with rage!
Seriously though, this is why I can't stand the left. They are ALL about inciting their base to a rage induced frenzy. Now they are basically lying and creating clickbait to do it.
Oh bullshit. To be enraged about this is to skip all the exact same type of fund raising emails trump sends out. You're outrage is way too selective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
I see what you did there.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I’m not the one sending an email with a fake subject line as click bait and then further inciting rage in the body of the email. These tactics are all the left...has left.
Do you approve of Pelosi’s email tactic?
No, I don't approve. Those emails suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Cohen's third client is Sean Hannity. Holy shit :lol2:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA saw that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
But, of course, Hannity railing against the search warrant is totally objective reporting.
Can't wait to find out whom Hannity is paying off.
Did Hannity pay someone off or is Cohen blackmailing him? So many possibilities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4c7_story.htmlQuote:
President Trump on Monday put the brakes on a preliminary plan to impose additional economic sanctions on Russia, walking back a Sunday announcement by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley that the Kremlin had swiftly denounced as “international economic raiding.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
This is a tweet from John Schindler @20commitee in August 2017Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
#NSA friends tell me they have Hannity in OPERATIONAL calls with known RIS agents. Team Mueller has it all. He is going down. SAD!
Who wants to bet Mueller talks to Hannity now?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is from the patriots blog 9 months ago. Never heard of it before but Ill attach a link
https://patribotics.blog/2017/07/20/...mpression=true
Quote:
Sources with links to the justice department report that Fox News is under an FBI counterintelligence investigation for co-ordinating with the Kremlin in broadcasting propaganda.
...
Specifically, Sean Hannity is on signals intelligence co-ordinating his pro-Trump message with organs of the Russian state, such as RT, Sputnik, Wikileaks and Julian Assange. However, emails co-ordinating messaging with registered agents of the Russian state are said to exist from more shows than that of Sean Hannity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I never expected this plot twist!
Patriotics is a left-wing fake news siteQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
“What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said. “Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”
Ahhh...its a Louise Mensch site. This from WikipediaQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Quote:
Although some of the reports in Patribotics have been later confirmed by major mainstream news outlets, the blog is controversial, since Mensch's claims, theories, and hypotheses are cited to information from unnamed sources connected to the intelligence community. Some critics have considered the blog posts to be conspiracy theories.
And you thought it was real lolQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
President Donald Trump and his longtime attorney Michael Cohen both lost a court challenge related to the FBI’s seizure of Cohen’s documents they both claim are protected by attorney-client privilege.
Cohen had asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order to stop federal prosecutors in Manhattan from viewing the information seized by the FBI until an independent third party, called a “special master,” be allowed to sort out what is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Similarly, Trump’s own legal representation in this case, Joanna Hendon, filed a letter on Sunday night asking the judge to give Cohen’s team first-access to the material.
U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood denied the requests and ruled that prosecutors will get first access to the information, followed by Cohen’s defense team ten days later. Wood noted that she has not yet decided whether she will appoint a special master in the case at all.
“It’s not that you’re not good people,” Wood told Cohen’s attorneys on Monday afternoon, near the end of the two-hour proceeding. “It’s that you’ve miscited the law.”
So much winning!
Let’s just selectively ignore the 19 indictments and multiple guilty pleas, not to mention discovering this shit about Cohen and turning it over to the FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth
No, he doesn’t have anything. Not going anywhere!
But Hillary won the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
So..Another day of nothing?
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYun...WbFm/giphy.gif
No, seriously stop and think for a moment. If a woman became pregnant on the day this thread was made she would be due in 5 days.
Are you saying that the investigation is taking too long?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
https://media1.giphy.com/media/qMqjZkmMi8wFO/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I'm saying the longer it drags on the less credibility the soap opera has. Seriously, we are going on close to two years now since this whole line of bullshit started. Do you guys seriously not have anything that you stand for? Please name one thing the Democrats offer that does not involve the government taking peoples money?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Convince me to vote Democrat again.
...again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
https://media2.giphy.com/media/pB27flArJ6u3e/giphy.gif
People don't believe me when I tell them I have only voted republican twice in my life, once for Ross Perot and the other Ron Paul. I have voted since '88 and only skipped out on this last election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Nope, I'm for taxes and want them higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
This investigation is less than a year old so spare me your 2 years bs.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/QZybu90DvXbtm/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is why democrats will continue to be losers, you have nothing but the promise of servitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm going to stop using the word liberal to describe democrats, it does the word liberal total injustice.
Know how I know you're retarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://media3.giphy.com/media/JUpTKbDrFBcqY/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Don't be so dramatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Says the person who wants to raise taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://media0.giphy.com/media/12cO77CLmhvDGw/giphy.gif
What do you propose? No taxes?
With the corrupt government we have at the moment, I would totally support a freeze on the collection of federal taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I don't chat about politics because well both parties are wrong in a lot of ways. I believe hilary to be a murderer (or had murders done) and a liar. I think trump could very well be a racist, at the least he probably shouldn't be president.
I am a strong right wing conservative though. However it's like with most issues if you want to chat about what i believe I am happy too, but I am not going to go blow up a building or kill people because i don't like what others say or do. :)
I just wanted to put in something since there are always thousands of posts i see and never say anything lol
You're dodging my question. You qualified your statement and you do support taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain