TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#9,551
#9,551
Mick said:
People have been indicted that worked for Trump and the campaign, Just not the "family". More to come. I am right that people have been indicted unless you can show where those people were just coffee boys it has everything to do with the Mueller investigation into Trump campaign and Russia. The Pizzagate thread is waiting for you.
Click to expand...

so its back to the so UnAmerican guilty until proven innocent. I just love this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9,552
#9,552
Grand Vol said:
No kidding. This was especially damning.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal
Click to expand...

Some of the characters are household names, thanks to the Russia scandal: James Comey, fired FBI director. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr. Julian Assange, grand master of WikiLeaks. And American attorney Adam Waldman, who has a Forrest Gump-like penchant for showing up in major cases of intrigue.



Each played a role in the early days of the Trump administration to try to get Assange to agree to “risk mitigation”

Don't trip all over your ignorance Grand.
 
#9,553
#9,553
LouderVol said:
so its back to the so UnAmerican guilty until proven innocent. I just love this.
Click to expand...

It never has left the investigative phase has it? It's not in the courts is it? It's still with the ole witch hunt narrative for you. It's all you have to protect your master.
 
#9,555
#9,555
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. Please tell me you’re better in court at countering than this. 😂
Click to expand...

Really, you're better than this. Point to me a case where a Court has said A and B met based simply on the fact that A and B were in the same city. Don't play the mindless conspiratorial crap that others play on here.
 
#9,556
#9,556
Mick said:
Some of the characters are household names, thanks to the Russia scandal: James Comey, fired FBI director. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr. Julian Assange, grand master of WikiLeaks. And American attorney Adam Waldman, who has a Forrest Gump-like penchant for showing up in major cases of intrigue.

Each played a role in the early days of the Trump administration to try to get Assange to agree to “risk mitigation”

Don't trip all over your ignorance Grand.
Click to expand...

I must spell it out for you...

James Comey - NOT a Trump appointee
Mark Warner - NOT a Trump appointee (not anyone's)
Bruce Ohr - NOT a Trump appointee
Adam Waldman - NOT a Trump appointee

So, hence, NOT with the Trump Admin especially since three of the four are actively anti-Trump. Worked under Trump, sure, but also three extremely telling names that are working AGAINST Trump.

Now, WHY did they choose not to go through with a meeting with Assange?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9,557
#9,557
evillawyer said:
Really, you're better than this. Point to me a case where a Court has said A and B met based simply on the fact that A and B were in the same city. Don't play the mindless conspiratorial crap that others play on here.
Click to expand...

I think your reply was weak and if that was all that you came up I probably wouldn’t have replied. That’s just me.

Look at the total picture with Szrock. His personal bias is a fact. Any professional bias is currently unknown but he’s gonna get a chance to talk to Congress about that! Coupled with usage of the Steele dossier and I think sure he’d be the first person I would suspect he talked to.

Would it meet the standard of proof in a court? No I agree on that. But I do think there’s enough smoke that it’s a plausible theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,558
#9,558
Let me break this down into Sesame Street terms for you, Mick.

Assange told the US Government he would disclose who WASN'T involved in the DNC hack and email scandal. Which might not have been as good as who DID do it, but certainly could eliminate some avenues.

The US Government's reply? "Nah, we're good. We'd rather trust a third party that was contracted by the hacked entity and trust them instead. Furthermore, we weren't even allowed to look at the servers ourselves and just have to take them on their word alone even though the leaks show what pathetic liars they are."

None of this is fishy to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,559
#9,559
NorthDallas40 said:
I think your reply was weak and if that was all that you came up I probably wouldn’t have replied. That’s just me.

Look at the total picture with Szrock. His personal bias is a fact. Any professional bias is currently unknown but he’s gonna get a chance to talk to Congress about that! Coupled with usage of the Steele dossier and I think sure he’d be the first person I would suspect he talked to.

Would it meet the standard of proof in a court? No I agree on that. But I do think there’s enough smoke that it’s a plausible theory.
Click to expand...

Say it ain't so NorthDallas40. I held out hopes there was a sliver of rationality in you.
 
#9,561
#9,561
Mick said:
It never has left the investigative phase has it? It's not in the courts is it? It's still with the ole witch hunt narrative for you. It's all you have to protect your master.
Click to expand...

"unless you believe they were coffee boys"

you have assumed their guilt and worked from that standpoint. never has the discussion started where it should.
 
#9,562
#9,562
Mick said:
Still investigating. How many Trump associates must be indicted before you will make the connection. Don't worry it hasn't lead to any indictments of the "Family". yet. You can still hold out hope that they won't be charged with anything.
Click to expand...

How many successful business and especially political types couldn't be indicted if viewed through Mueller eyes? These days (maybe always) being successful generally means gaining influence, and gaining influence generally means loosening ethics.

Are tax incentives slippery deals - what the difference if it's Atlanta making the deal rather than Moscow? Everyone tries for favorite treatment; if foreign favor is such a big deal then why did we sign on to globalism? What is "favored nation" status if not unequal application of laws/tariffs etc? You think building a plant in Mexico or China doesn't involve downright graft? But then Dims are lifetime politicians with no real record of anything other than buying and selling political influence ... and "that's different."
 
#9,565
#9,565
evillawyer said:
Say it ain't so NorthDallas40. I held out hopes there was a sliver of rationality in you.
Click to expand...

You really don’t believe that timeline lines up perfectly with Sztock (I cannot spell that name!) and Steele? Do you not think that is a primary question he will get asked by Congress? Who he met on that trip? And he better not lie. His career totally hinges on his candor here.
 
#9,566
#9,566
Grand Vol said:
I must spell it out for you...

James Comey - NOT a Trump appointee
Mark Warner - NOT a Trump appointee (not anyone's)
Bruce Ohr - NOT a Trump appointee
Adam Waldman - NOT a Trump appointee

So, hence, NOT with the Trump Admin especially since three of the four are actively anti-Trump. Worked under Trump, sure, but also three extremely telling names that are working AGAINST Trump.

Now, WHY did they choose not to go through with a meeting with Assange?
Click to expand...

What was he offering except a plea of innocence while trying to gain immunity by providing a security checkup of our government agencies. They were not offering anything and he leaked the information that they were trying to get him not to leak when they were having the discussions about immunity. Why would anyone give him immunity for leaking national secrets. Only you and the merry band of idiots. This all happened on Trumps watch during his Presidential Administration. They were part of his administration at the time. It don't matter who appointed them.
 
#9,567
#9,567
NorthDallas40 said:
You really don’t believe that timeline lines up perfectly with Sztock (I cannot spell that name!) and Steele? Do you not think that is a primary question he will get asked by Congress? Who he met on that trip? And he better not lie. His career totally hinges on his candor here.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be such a "downer," but much more likely the meeting was Strzok and Alexander Downer.

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation - The New York Times
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,568
#9,568
Mick said:
What was he offering except a plea of innocence while trying to gain immunity by providing a security checkup of our government agencies. They were not offering anything and he leaked the information that they were trying to get him not to leak when they were having the discussions about immunity. Why would anyone give him immunity for leaking national secrets. Only you and the merry band of idiots. This all happened on Trumps watch during his Presidential Administration. They were part of his administration at the time. It don't matter who appointed them.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you didn't read the article nor do you understand why the CIA was interested in this deal or the role Warner had in the decision making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,570
#9,570
evillawyer said:
Sorry to be such a "downer," but much more likely the meeting was Strzok and Alexander Downer.

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Evil I’ll freely admit that Downer is another real possibility however I’m not sure that’s a good thing due to his connections with the Clinton Foundation as well as his own relationship to the Steele dossier.

We both could be right. But I doubt it. That would be a lot to process in a first discovery meeting I think.
 
#9,571
#9,571
volinbham said:
I'm guessing you didn't read the article nor do you understand why the CIA was interested in this deal or the role Warner had in the decision making.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting? The CIA wanted to keep their secrets secret. Well no sh!t. Warner role was that of a go between to see if congress was interested in anything Assange had. What are you suggesting was wrong about any of this? Please do tell.
 
#9,573
#9,573
NorthDallas40 said:
Evil I’ll freely admit that Downer is another real possibility however I’m not sure that’s a good thing due to his connections with the Clinton Foundation as well as his own relationship to the Steele dossier.

We both could be right. But I doubt it. That would be a lot to process in a first discovery meeting I think.
Click to expand...

So what's the connection to Downer above and beyond him executing--in 2006--an official government document (the one donating money to Clinton Foundation) in his official government capacity on behalf of the Australian government? You gotta admit that seems a wee bit tenuous, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top