TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#8,102
#8,102
BowlBrother85 said:
Poor old Donny, forever the victim. Personally? I think he needs to "hereby demand" another inquiry.
Click to expand...

Why is it libs play the victim card time and time again, then get pissed if someone they oppose could possibly be perceived as a victim? Do you guys have that **** trademarked or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,104
#8,104
It is now clear that Russian attempts at interference in the 2016 election, though somewhat outrageous, were ineffectual, unconnected with any particular party, a small effort given what a country of Russia’s resources and taste for political skullduggery and chicanery is capable of, and minor compared with the influence many countries, including the United States, have sometimes exercised in the elections of other countries. No serious person could find anything in the conduct of the president that could be construed as obstruction of justice, the all-purpose catch-all of American prosecutors, who can conjure that charge from the most mundane acts.

Russia Investigation: Collusion Narrative Collapses | National Review
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,105
#8,105
"The former F.B.I. senior official recognizes something more substantive going on with his old boss as well. “This investigation is classic Mueller: he is doing a classic, organized crime case. This is RICO 101, working your way up and sideways. You pop a few guys for gambling, and no one is going to do a million years for gambling, but you’re gonna get their scratch pads, then you move on to their associates. You flip one guy who you arrest with no fanfare. It’s exactly what Mueller has been doing his whole ******n life. It’s just that this time the boss of the family happens to be the leader of the free world. Mueller doesn’t care if he gets Trump. He doesn’t care if he doesn’t get Trump. He has no political agenda. He is digging through the layers and bringing back the truth, and the truth is going to be whatever it is going to be.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,106
#8,106
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged - after much prodding by lawmakers - that he backs the findings by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in the U.S. presidential campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and ultimately help Donald Trump.

Pompeo, who was previously Trump's CIA Director, was pressed by Democrats on whether he accepted the January 2017 report issued by the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency during testimony Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Pompeo's response? "Yes, sir,"

So, there you have it. Trump's own Secretary of State and former CIA Director admits that Russia's goal was not just to sew discord among the American people and chaos in the democratic process but the Russians also did have a clear preference for Donald Trump. Trump has always tried to deny this.
 
#8,107
#8,107
OuterBanksVol said:
"The former F.B.I. senior official recognizes something more substantive going on with his old boss as well. “This investigation is classic Mueller: he is doing a classic, organized crime case. This is RICO 101, working your way up and sideways. You pop a few guys for gambling, and no one is going to do a million years for gambling, but you’re gonna get their scratch pads, then you move on to their associates. You flip one guy who you arrest with no fanfare. It’s exactly what Mueller has been doing his whole ******n life. It’s just that this time the boss of the family happens to be the leader of the free world. Mueller doesn’t care if he gets Trump. He doesn’t care if he doesn’t get Trump. He has no political agenda. He is digging through the layers and bringing back the truth, and the truth is going to be whatever it is going to be.”
Click to expand...

Except all Mueller did was approve a deal to let a man who killed 19 people go free.
 
#8,109
#8,109
This is from Nymag.com:

Trump lawyer and prolific cable news presence Rudy Giuliani has been wavering on his client's willingness to testify to Robert Mueller, frequently presenting it as a "perjury trap". As Guiliani warned before, "What they're really trying to do is to trap him into perjury and we're not suckers." In another interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani expounds upon his reasoning. The perjury trap turns out to be the nature of truth itself, and Mueller's presumptive belief that it exists in some stable form. "Truth is relative," Giuliani tells the Washington Post. "They may have a different version of the truth than we do."

This is either another hint that either Giuliani's client may not be totally innocent, or that Trump intends to scour academia for the best postmodernist philosophers to join his legal team.

That reminds me of Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" defense of then Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers at Trump's inauguration. Basically, what Rudy is saying is: it's very possible that Trump's ego will lead him into embellishment or hyperbole when defending himself from an accusation and that is a concern for the Trump legal team if he does agree to an interview with Robert Mueller.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,111
#8,111
BowlBrother85 said:
This is from Nymag.com:

Trump lawyer and prolific cable news presence Rudy Giuliani has been wavering on his client's willingness to testify to Robert Mueller, frequently presenting it as a "perjury trap". As Guiliani warned before, "What they're really trying to do is to trap him into perjury and we're not suckers." In another interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani expounds upon his reasoning. The perjury trap turns out to be the nature of truth itself, and Mueller's presumptive belief that it exists in some stable form. "Truth is relative," Giuliani tells the Washington Post. "They may have a different version of the truth than we do."

This is either another hint that either Giuliani's client may not be totally innocent, or that Trump intends to scour academia for the best postmodernist philosophers to join his legal team.

That reminds me of Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" defense of then Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers at Trump's inauguration. Basically, what Rudy is saying is: it's very possible that Trump's ego will lead him into embellishment or hyperbole when defending himself from an accusation and that is a concern for the Trump legal team if he does agree to an interview with Robert Mueller.
Click to expand...

Or it could be a nicer way of saying “I think they’re all lying sacks of ****”?
 
#8,112
#8,112
NorthDallas40 said:
Or it could be a nicer way of saying “I think they’re all lying sacks of ****”?
Click to expand...

It's a discreet way of saying, "When Trump loses his temper, he becomes prone to hyperbole and shouldn't be taken literally." That's fine on Twitter but might not work as well when being questioned by Robert Mueller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,113
#8,113
Franklin Pierce said:
It is now clear that Russian attempts at interference in the 2016 election, though somewhat outrageous, were ineffectual, unconnected with any particular party, a small effort given what a country of Russia’s resources and taste for political skullduggery and chicanery is capable of, and minor compared with the influence many countries, including the United States, have sometimes exercised in the elections of other countries. No serious person could find anything in the conduct of the president that could be construed as obstruction of justice, the all-purpose catch-all of American prosecutors, who can conjure that charge from the most mundane acts.

Russia Investigation: Collusion Narrative Collapses | National Review
Click to expand...

Love the sub headline :eek:lol::eek:lol: :

The early righteousness of the anti-Trump lynch-mob has been deflated.




66128940.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,114
#8,114
BowlBrother85 said:
It's a discreet way of saying, "When Trump loses his temper, he becomes prone to hyperbole and shouldn't be taken literally." That's fine on Twitter but might not work as well when being questioned by Robert Mueller.
Click to expand...

I think my interpretation is much closer in this case.
 
#8,116
#8,116
BowlBrother85 said:
This is from Nymag.com:

Trump lawyer and prolific cable news presence Rudy Giuliani has been wavering on his client's willingness to testify to Robert Mueller, frequently presenting it as a "perjury trap". As Guiliani warned before, "What they're really trying to do is to trap him into perjury and we're not suckers." In another interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani expounds upon his reasoning. The perjury trap turns out to be the nature of truth itself, and Mueller's presumptive belief that it exists in some stable form. "Truth is relative," Giuliani tells the Washington Post. "They may have a different version of the truth than we do."

This is either another hint that either Giuliani's client may not be totally innocent, or that Trump intends to scour academia for the best postmodernist philosophers to join his legal team.

That reminds me of Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" defense of then Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers at Trump's inauguration. Basically, what Rudy is saying is: it's very possible that Trump's ego will lead him into embellishment or hyperbole when defending himself from an accusation and that is a concern for the Trump legal team if he does agree to an interview with Robert Mueller.
Click to expand...

Bolded text... this is pretty much my root hatred of Trump. The man is so inherently dishonest, he cannot differentiate fact from his own fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,117
#8,117
Franklin Pierce said:
It is now clear that Russian attempts at interference in the 2016 election, though somewhat outrageous, were ineffectual, unconnected with any particular party, a small effort given what a country of Russia’s resources and taste for political skullduggery and chicanery is capable of, and minor compared with the influence many countries, including the United States, have sometimes exercised in the elections of other countries. No serious person could find anything in the conduct of the president that could be construed as obstruction of justice, the all-purpose catch-all of American prosecutors, who can conjure that charge from the most mundane acts.

Russia Investigation: Collusion Narrative Collapses | National Review
Click to expand...

liked for skulduggery.
 
#8,119
#8,119
Per The Wall Street Journal: "Roger Stone Sought Information on Clinton from Assange, Emails Show"

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone privately sought information he considered damaging to Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The emails could raise new questions about Roger Stone's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in September when he said he "merely wanted confirmation" from an acquaintance that Julian Assange had information about Hillary Clinton, according to a portion of the transcript that was made public.

In a September 18, 2016 message, Roger Stone urged an acquaintance (Randy Credico, a New York radio personality) who knew Julian Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Hillary Clinton's alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was Secretary of State, referring to her by her initials HRC:

"Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30 -- particularly on August 20, 2011," Roger Stone wrote to Randy Credico, who had interviewed Julian Assange several weeks earlier. Stone, a long time confidant of Donald Trump, had no formal role in the campaign at the time.

Randy Credico initially responded to Roger Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks' website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Roger Stone replied, "Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have???"

In another email, Credico then asked Stone to give him a "little bit of time," saying he thought Julian Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Credico wrote, "That batch probably coming out in the next drop... I can't ask them favors every other day. I asked one of his lawyers... they have major legal headaches riggt now... relax."

Randy Credico said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he never passed the message on to Julian Assange or his lawyers but "got tired" of Roger Stone "bothering" him, and so he told Stone that he had passed along the message. Credico says he did so because he owed Stone a favor for helping him book Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as a guest on his show.

3 things to take away from this:

1) Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee last September when he said that he merely wanted confirmation that WikiLeaks had this particularly damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The emails make it clear that he was specifically requesting them.

2) Roger Stone had no formal role in the Trump campaign but his informal role was a high profile one. He was a regular guest on Sunday morning news talk shows during the 2016 campaign; always defending and advocating for Trump's candidacy.

3) This is notable because it is the first hard evidence that someone acting on behalf of the Trump campaign did attempt to contact Julian Assange (through an intermediary) to coordinate the release of WikiLeaks' emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

This came from The Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course, he also owns Fox News which is very friendly to Donald Trump... Fox News (and Sean Hannity in particular) made a big deal of that email which supposedly showed Hillary Clinton disrupting a purported peace deal in Libya. At the very least, Stone is in some trouble. Just more to chew on, I guess.
 
#8,121
#8,121
BowlBrother85 said:
Per The Wall Street Journal: "Roger Stone Sought Information on Clinton from Assange, Emails Show"

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone privately sought information he considered damaging to Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The emails could raise new questions about Roger Stone's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in September when he said he "merely wanted confirmation" from an acquaintance that Julian Assange had information about Hillary Clinton, according to a portion of the transcript that was made public.

In a September 18, 2016 message, Roger Stone urged an acquaintance (Randy Credico, a New York radio personality) who knew Julian Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Hillary Clinton's alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was Secretary of State, referring to her by her initials HRC:

"Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30 -- particularly on August 20, 2011," Roger Stone wrote to Randy Credico, who had interviewed Julian Assange several weeks earlier. Stone, a long time confidant of Donald Trump, had no formal role in the campaign at the time.

Randy Credico initially responded to Roger Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks' website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Roger Stone replied, "Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have???"

In another email, Credico then asked Stone to give him a "little bit of time," saying he thought Julian Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Credico wrote, "That batch probably coming out in the next drop... I can't ask them favors every other day. I asked one of his lawyers... they have major legal headaches riggt now... relax."

Randy Credico said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he never passed the message on to Julian Assange or his lawyers but "got tired" of Roger Stone "bothering" him, and so he told Stone that he had passed along the message. Credico says he did so because he owed Stone a favor for helping him book Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as a guest on his show.

3 things to take away from this:

1) Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee last September when he said that he merely wanted confirmation that WikiLeaks had this particularly damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The emails make it clear that he was specifically requesting them.

2) Roger Stone had no formal role in the Trump campaign but his informal role was a high profile one. He was a regular guest on Sunday morning news talk shows during the 2016 campaign; always defending and advocating for Trump's candidacy.

3) This is notable because it is the first hard evidence that someone acting on behalf of the Trump campaign did attempt to contact Julian Assange (through an intermediary) to coordinate the release of WikiLeaks' emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

This came from The Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course, he also owns Fox News which is very friendly to Donald Trump... Fox News (and Sean Hannity in particular) made a big deal of that email which supposedly showed Hillary Clinton disrupting a purported peace deal in Libya. At the very least, Stone is in some trouble. Just more to chew on, I guess.
Click to expand...

Stone is a horrible human being. As they say, we're all a product of those with whom we associate. Trump's bestest buddies include Cohen and Stone, which is telling.

Stone will be indicted at some point. Guaranteed. He's rotten to the core.
 
#8,122
#8,122
OuterBanksVol said:
Stone is a horrible human being. As they say, we're all a product of those with whom we associate. Trump's bestest buddies include Cohen and Stone, which is telling.

Stone will be indicted at some point. Guaranteed. He's rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

So you would support charges for Hitlery too, right? She is probably the most rotten politician in the history of this country.

I am guessing that you would like to also see charges against those in the DNC that helped rig the primaries against crazy Bernie too, right?
 
#8,123
#8,123
norrislakevol said:
So you would support charges for Hitlery too, right? She is probably the most rotten politician in the history of this country.

I am guessing that you would like to also see charges against those in the DNC that helped rig the primaries against crazy Bernie too, right?
Click to expand...

Uh, sure, re: Clinton if she did something illegal. RE: DNC rigging it's own primary not a violation, just stupid politics.
 
#8,124
#8,124
BowlBrother85 said:
Per The Wall Street Journal: "Roger Stone Sought Information on Clinton from Assange, Emails Show"

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone privately sought information he considered damaging to Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The emails could raise new questions about Roger Stone's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in September when he said he "merely wanted confirmation" from an acquaintance that Julian Assange had information about Hillary Clinton, according to a portion of the transcript that was made public.

In a September 18, 2016 message, Roger Stone urged an acquaintance (Randy Credico, a New York radio personality) who knew Julian Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Hillary Clinton's alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was Secretary of State, referring to her by her initials HRC:

"Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30 -- particularly on August 20, 2011," Roger Stone wrote to Randy Credico, who had interviewed Julian Assange several weeks earlier. Stone, a long time confidant of Donald Trump, had no formal role in the campaign at the time.

Randy Credico initially responded to Roger Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks' website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Roger Stone replied, "Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have???"

In another email, Credico then asked Stone to give him a "little bit of time," saying he thought Julian Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Credico wrote, "That batch probably coming out in the next drop... I can't ask them favors every other day. I asked one of his lawyers... they have major legal headaches riggt now... relax."

Randy Credico said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he never passed the message on to Julian Assange or his lawyers but "got tired" of Roger Stone "bothering" him, and so he told Stone that he had passed along the message. Credico says he did so because he owed Stone a favor for helping him book Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as a guest on his show.

3 things to take away from this:

1) Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee last September when he said that he merely wanted confirmation that WikiLeaks had this particularly damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The emails make it clear that he was specifically requesting them.

2) Roger Stone had no formal role in the Trump campaign but his informal role was a high profile one. He was a regular guest on Sunday morning news talk shows during the 2016 campaign; always defending and advocating for Trump's candidacy.

3) This is notable because it is the first hard evidence that someone acting on behalf of the Trump campaign did attempt to contact Julian Assange (through an intermediary) to coordinate the release of WikiLeaks' emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

This came from The Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course, he also owns Fox News which is very friendly to Donald Trump... Fox News (and Sean Hannity in particular) made a big deal of that email which supposedly showed Hillary Clinton disrupting a purported peace deal in Libya. At the very least, Stone is in some trouble. Just more to chew on, I guess.
Click to expand...

So, what crimes are in play here?

What would Stone potentially be charged with if everything you believe is true?

Felonious Intermediary Email Requests and Inquiries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,125
#8,125
BowlBrother85 said:
Per The Wall Street Journal: "Roger Stone Sought Information on Clinton from Assange, Emails Show"

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone privately sought information he considered damaging to Hillary Clinton from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The emails could raise new questions about Roger Stone's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in September when he said he "merely wanted confirmation" from an acquaintance that Julian Assange had information about Hillary Clinton, according to a portion of the transcript that was made public.

In a September 18, 2016 message, Roger Stone urged an acquaintance (Randy Credico, a New York radio personality) who knew Julian Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Hillary Clinton's alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was Secretary of State, referring to her by her initials HRC:

"Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30 -- particularly on August 20, 2011," Roger Stone wrote to Randy Credico, who had interviewed Julian Assange several weeks earlier. Stone, a long time confidant of Donald Trump, had no formal role in the campaign at the time.

Randy Credico initially responded to Roger Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks' website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Roger Stone replied, "Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have???"

In another email, Credico then asked Stone to give him a "little bit of time," saying he thought Julian Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Credico wrote, "That batch probably coming out in the next drop... I can't ask them favors every other day. I asked one of his lawyers... they have major legal headaches riggt now... relax."

Randy Credico said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he never passed the message on to Julian Assange or his lawyers but "got tired" of Roger Stone "bothering" him, and so he told Stone that he had passed along the message. Credico says he did so because he owed Stone a favor for helping him book Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as a guest on his show.

3 things to take away from this:

1) Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee last September when he said that he merely wanted confirmation that WikiLeaks had this particularly damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The emails make it clear that he was specifically requesting them.

2) Roger Stone had no formal role in the Trump campaign but his informal role was a high profile one. He was a regular guest on Sunday morning news talk shows during the 2016 campaign; always defending and advocating for Trump's candidacy.

3) This is notable because it is the first hard evidence that someone acting on behalf of the Trump campaign did attempt to contact Julian Assange (through an intermediary) to coordinate the release of WikiLeaks' emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

This came from The Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course, he also owns Fox News which is very friendly to Donald Trump... Fox News (and Sean Hannity in particular) made a big deal of that email which supposedly showed Hillary Clinton disrupting a purported peace deal in Libya. At the very least, Stone is in some trouble. Just more to chew on, I guess.
Click to expand...

Can Stone just use the Clapper defense and say he thought they were talking about something else?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top