TrumPutinGate

#24,826
#24,826
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I can’t belive there are still people who believe in this conspiracy theory of Trump collusion.
Click to expand...

I know. It looks like it may turn out collusion is the least of his problems. Can't prove it but I suspect SDNY is already neck deep in Trumps financial dealings over the years.
 
#24,828
#24,828
How so? It’s seems a lot more probable that Misfud was used to set this whole thing up. With as much BS as they’ve leaked from this (remember getting all excited about Cohen a few pages back) that if there any shred of viable information that any collusion happened, we would have heard it by now. It’s not gonna end the way you want it to
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#24,830
#24,830
Look, I'm not a conservative, that's just my opinion on matters and I'm not naive enough to think that I'm 100% right and conservatives are wrong. This we can talk about but anyone who can not see that tRump is a con man and has no business being president is just burying their heads in the sand..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and luthervol
#24,833
#24,833
Hunerwadel said:
The US Attorney for SDNY is a Trump appointee. If he is looking into Trump's financials I doubt if he is just sifting sand.
Click to expand...
Not my point.

Russian collusion has turned into get Trump and anyone associated with Trump by any means necessary.

Actual crimes usually precede investigations. LEO is supposed to investigate crimes, not people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeWayOfLife
#24,834
#24,834
The case for Russia collusion … against the Democrats

...
A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.


The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

...

The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion and bribery.


Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.

....

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#24,836
#24,836
luthervol said:
Sure, they've all been looked at. What you should have said is never before has this much money been raised of which 40% is unaccounted.
Click to expand...
This much money was raised because of the dipsh!ts you all want to try and push for President. It's going to be no different in 2020 with who has come out and said they're running. The great part, they're all on record agreeing with AOC's green deal before they ever get started.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#24,839
#24,839
Hunerwadel said:
Bring it on.
Click to expand...

The author of this piece sounds like a straight shooter.

John F. Solomon - Wikipedia

Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Reviewhas been critical of John Solomon's reporting.[3] In 2007, he wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[3] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[4] In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon failed to add context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[19] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[20][21][22] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[4]

In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hillsuggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[23]According to the Huffington Post, Solomon's reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[23]

That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Postsaid that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon's reporting for the publication.[24] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon's reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill's reputation.[24] They also expressed concerns over Solomon's close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[24]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#24,841
#24,841
evillawyer said:
The author of this piece sounds like a straight shooter.

John F. Solomon - Wikipedia

Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Reviewhas been critical of John Solomon's reporting.[3] In 2007, he wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[3] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[4] In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon failed to add context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[19] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[20][21][22] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[4]

In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hillsuggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[23]According to the Huffington Post, Solomon's reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[23]

That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Postsaid that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon's reporting for the publication.[24] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon's reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill's reputation.[24] They also expressed concerns over Solomon's close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[24]
Click to expand...
Wikipedia. Solid
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and BigOrangeD
#24,842
#24,842
NurseGoodVol said:
Not just looked at, a district attorney has subpoenaed records and is going to investigate it. I don't think that has happened before.
Click to expand...
DEMs are throwing the kitchen sink at Trump. They do not want the actual truth to come out but it's coming and there's nothing they can do about it but delay.
 
#24,843
#24,843
kn020819dAPR20190207054523.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#24,844
#24,844
volinbham said:
If it's internal polling data collected by a campaign and someone on the campaign gives some to a foreign entity it's stretching to call that espionage. It's not government data that is being shared.
Click to expand...

It’s illegal for a campaign to give a super pac or any pac internal campaign data so it’s not a stretch to so that giving it to a foreign government isn’t a crime to.
 
#24,850
#24,850
hog88 said:
He's right and guess what Carlos. You are an example of it.
Click to expand...

LOL. coming from the guy that wants to give the russians discovery just to try to discredit the mueller investigation. Sticking it to the Mueller is more important that anything in your mind. And you're still acting like a pro russian fool.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top