TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#4,576
#4,576
Grand Vol said:
What if you suddenly realized you're just as bad as the Pizza Slice (or whatever) conspiracy crowd by believing everything that comes along?
Click to expand...

That would be gut wrenchingly embarrassing. That's why I'm careful not to believe everything I see or hear in the 'news".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,578
#4,578
Interesting case laid out by Bongino...Could the Mueller probe be a smokescreen?

Where’s the investigation into the Podesta group and Russian ties? Was Perkins Coie in the middle of a Russia set up? Did you have a clue about all the other Clinton Russian connections that were at risk if she lost?

Who used fake email accounts ? Why use fake email accounts? Ding ding ding, to avoid FOIA requests, stupid!

The money that passed hands through lobbyists , Russian connections and coincidences draw some very interesting Russian storylines here:

March 5, 2018: Ep. 669 This is all a Smokescreen – Dan Bongino
 
Last edited:
#4,579
#4,579
Vol0725 said:
That allegation, is not a crime (based on my research).
Feel free to correct me with the legal code and presedence.
Click to expand...

False Statements (18 U.S.C. 1001)
The general false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, outlaws false statements, concealment, or
false documentation in any matter within the jurisdiction of any of the three branches of the
federal government, although it limits application in the case of Congress and the courts.476 More
specifically it states:
I. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
II. whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States,
III. knowingly and willfully—
IV. a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8
years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A [sexual abuse], 109B
[sex offender registration], 110 [sexual exploitation], or 117 [transportation for illicit sexual
purposes], or section 1591 [sex trafficking], then the term of imprisonment imposed under
this section shall be not more than 8 years.

There's lots more if you care to look......


Subornation of Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622)
Section 1622 outlaws procuring or inducing another to commit perjury: “Whoever procures
another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. 1622. The crime consists of
two elements—(1) an act of perjury committed by another (2) induced or procured by the
defendant. Perjury under either Section 1621 or Section 1623 will support a conviction for
subornation under Section 1622,471 but proof of the commission of an act of perjury is a necessary
element of subornation.472 Although the authorities are exceptionally sparse, it appears that to
suborn one must know that the induced statement is false and that at least to suborn under Section
1621 one must also knowingly and willfully induce.473 Subornation is only infrequently
prosecuted as such perhaps because of the ease with which it can now be prosecuted as an
obstruction of justice under either 18 U.S.C. 1503 or 1512474 which unlike Section 1622 do not
insist upon suborner success as a prerequisite to prosecution.475
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,580
#4,580
luthervol said:
False Statements (18 U.S.C. 1001)
The general false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, outlaws false statements, concealment, or
false documentation in any matter within the jurisdiction of any of the three branches of the
federal government, although it limits application in the case of Congress and the courts.476 More
specifically it states:
I. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
II. whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States,
III. knowingly and willfully—
IV. a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8
years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A [sexual abuse], 109B
[sex offender registration], 110 [sexual exploitation], or 117 [transportation for illicit sexual
purposes], or section 1591 [sex trafficking], then the term of imprisonment imposed under
this section shall be not more than 8 years.

There's lots more if you care to look......


Subornation of Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622)
Section 1622 outlaws procuring or inducing another to commit perjury: “Whoever procures
another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. 1622. The crime consists of
two elements—(1) an act of perjury committed by another (2) induced or procured by the
defendant. Perjury under either Section 1621 or Section 1623 will support a conviction for
subornation under Section 1622,471 but proof of the commission of an act of perjury is a necessary
element of subornation.472 Although the authorities are exceptionally sparse, it appears that to
suborn one must know that the induced statement is false and that at least to suborn under Section
1621 one must also knowingly and willfully induce.473 Subornation is only infrequently
prosecuted as such perhaps because of the ease with which it can now be prosecuted as an
obstruction of justice under either 18 U.S.C. 1503 or 1512474 which unlike Section 1622 do not
insist upon suborner success as a prerequisite to prosecution.475
Click to expand...

False statements to whom? Subordination of perjury upon or to whom?
 
#4,581
#4,581
lawgator1 said:
First he has had no contact with Russia, at all, ever.

Then it was well, yes, contact, but no financial ties.

Then it was well, yes, financial ties, but none recent. And no coordination with the campaign

Then it was well, yes, there was that one meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower, involving my campaign chief and son, but that was about adoption.

Then it was, well, yes, the purpose of the meeting was to get dirt on Hillary, but we ended up not getting any.

Then it was, well, yes, I said that we'd have some dirt on her the next week, but it was wikileaks who got it, not us or the Russians.

Then it was, well, yes, the intelligence services say that wikileaks who worked with the Russians to obtain it and disseminate it, but there was no effort to interfere in the election.

Then it was well, yes, they did interfere in the election, but I didn't ask them to.

And now it is, well, maybe he did ask them to and that is about to be proven, and if so the retort will be as hog's above: "Well, yes, I did collude with the Russians and I owe them billions/they have blackmial material on me, but if given enough time that will always be proven by a prosecutor with the time and money to do it."

Its amazing how every time that Trump and his mindless followers set a bar and say, well, it wasn't THIS, that when it is shown that "this" indeed occurred, they just change the bar to well, maybe so but THAT didn't happen.

Its the reason this is taking the time it is and its the reason the case is being made, to borrow a UT term, brick by brick. The evidence is going to have to be overwhelming to get the Trump mindless minions to accept it.
Click to expand...

Let me break this down for you.


Christopher Steele is an ex MI6 spy.

Steele is a foreigner, not an American.

Steele was fired from FBI as a source.

A foreigner meddled in our election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,583
#4,583
SLICKYINC said:
Let me break this down for you.


Christopher Steele is an ex MI6 spy.

Steele is a foreigner, not an American.

Steele was fired from FBI as a source.

A foreigner meddled in our election.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Nothing Steele did was made known to the public, so he obviously didn't meddle with the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,585
#4,585
Notice what you aren't seeing for the past few weeks or so?

Republican members of these committees out there defending Trump.

It's because they know. They know what is coming is bad. They want no part of it. Or him. He's a man on an island, even within his own party. Toxic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,586
#4,586
OuterBanksVol said:
Well here it is: An ex-Trump campaign member stating that he believes collusion with the Russians actually occurred. The onion us peeling closer to the massive stank in the center:

"Ultimately, Nunberg told CNN that Trump “may very well have done something during the election with the Russians."

He said specifically that he felt former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page "was colluding with the Russians" but suggested Page might have been a lone wolf. He also said he believes that Mueller thinks Roger Stone, his own political ally, colluded via contacts with WikiLeaks."
Click to expand...

The Mueller bus. Get out of the way! Save yourself.

img_3557.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,587
#4,587
You got him now. Found the proverbial smoking gun.

LG nailed it in the thread title: the beginning of the end.

Come on down, President Pence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,588
#4,588
Squints said:
His taste in women is far more clean than Clinton’s insatiable hunger for tubbies.
Click to expand...
Clinton's was genius though. Trump's women make most average women jealous. Monica was average. If an average woman was 'loved' by the president.....
 
#4,589
#4,589
SpaceCoastVol said:
Clinton's was genius though. Trump's women make most average women jealous. Monica was average. If an average woman was 'loved' by the president.....
Click to expand...

This is the main Trump supporters response. We don’t care that he’s a cheater cause the women he bangs are good looking. It’s the typical teenage response which is where the majority of his supporters are mentally. The party of god turns a blind eye as long as the girl is hot.

Just FYI I don’t care who clinto banged nor do I care who trump was banging. It’s just comical how his base says “well at least she was hot!!” Most have never been with an attractive woman, just like most will never Be millionaires....living vicariously through a hero
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,590
#4,590
Sin City Vol said:
This is the main Trump supporters response. We don’t care that he’s a cheater cause the women he bangs are good looking. It’s the typical teenage response which is where the majority of his supporters are mentally. The party of god turns a blind eye as long as the girl is hot.

Just FYI I don’t care who clinto banged nor do I care who trump was banging. It’s just comical how his base says “well at least she was hot!!” Most have never been with an attractive woman, just like most will never Be millionaires....living vicariously through a hero
Click to expand...

Mr. Simmons,

Message board banter and sarcasm are not for you. It’s okay, we understand. Everyone has their niche, you just haven’t found yours yet.

57edacce3ef59.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,591
#4,591
Ahhhhh... so here's the deal. Nunberg is a drunk. He'll realize his blunder tomorrow and go full reverse. He will appear before the Grand Jury Friday. Watch.

Rarely, if ever, has a political operative acted so brazenly when facing the very real prospect of being tossed in jail. Nunberg seemed not to care about how the chips would fall. But several of his friends told The Daily Beast they were concerned that he was putting himself in severe legal jeopardy by going on multiple live cable-news programs Monday afternoon.

They also said that they were worried Nunberg had been drinking prior to dialing in to MSNBC and CNN.

Starting Monday morning, Nunberg began calling several close associates that he was flatly refusing, at this time, to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Three Nunberg friends said they walked away from those conversations fearful that he was “drinking again” and was about to embark on a personal tailspin. They didn’t know it would play out on daytime TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,592
#4,592
OuterBanksVol said:
Ahhhhh... so here's the deal. Nunberg is a drunk. He'll realize his blunder tomorrow and go full reverse. He will appear before the Grand Jury Friday. Watch.

Rarely, if ever, has a political operative acted so brazenly when facing the very real prospect of being tossed in jail. Nunberg seemed not to care about how the chips would fall. But several of his friends told The Daily Beast they were concerned that he was putting himself in severe legal jeopardy by going on multiple live cable-news programs Monday afternoon.

They also said that they were worried Nunberg had been drinking prior to dialing in to MSNBC and CNN.

Starting Monday morning, Nunberg began calling several close associates that he was flatly refusing, at this time, to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Three Nunberg friends said they walked away from those conversations fearful that he was “drinking again” and was about to embark on a personal tailspin. They didn’t know it would play out on daytime TV.
Click to expand...

The Daily Beast, LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,597
#4,597
He told Tur he would testify.

Then he started reviewing his emails.

Then he said he would not testify.

What is in the emails that made him change his mind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,598
#4,598
lawgator1 said:
He told Tur he would testify.

Then he started reviewing his emails.

Then he said he would not testify.

What is in the emails that made him change his mind?
Click to expand...

Probably, should have used bleachbit or hammers to destroy evidence like someone you strongly admire.
 
#4,599
#4,599
Breaking news is that a Russian official vetoed making Romney the Sec. of State. They wanted someone willing to play ball in sanctions over the Ukraine.

If that is true, Trump should be charged with treason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,600
#4,600
lawgator1 said:
Breaking news is that a Russian official vetoed making Romney the Sec. of State. They wanted someone willing to play ball in sanctions over the Ukraine.

If that is true, Trump should be charged with treason.
Click to expand...

The Daily Beast and Salon are your goto websites?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top