Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK so now we're arguing numbers. I guess once you start arguing over the price, we already know what you are.

How much SHOULD Flynn be able to charge the Russians for his military intel knowledge? If it was only $67,500 then he sold out cheap.

-DSK

Aldrich Ames sold out cheap. $50,000. Most do. Rule 40 of Dulles rules of spycraft which are probably the same in Russian:

Try to find agents who do not work for money alone, but for conviction. Remember, however, that not by conviction alone, does the man live. If they need financial help, give it to them. And avoid the “woolly” type of idealist, the fellow who lives in the clouds.

https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-intelligence-work-73-rules-of-spycraft-allen-dulles-1960s/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

It's still illegal!!

It is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billy backstay said:
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK so now we're arguing numbers. I guess once you start arguing over the price, we already know what you are.eball

How much SHOULD Flynn be able to charge the Russians for his military intel knowledge? If it was only $67,500 then he sold out cheap.

-DSK

 

For all anyone really knows he may have had financial difficulties of one sort or another; not that that excuses his actions.....

It may just be partisanship on my part, or the fact that Flynn has always seemed like a sleazeball to me, but I tend to believe that he got a lot more money. Shucks the Russians flung $30 million+ at the NRA..... that we know about...... and if he didn't get at least half that much, then he either sold out for pocket change or else he didn't know shit the Russians wanted.

 

2 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"How much SHOULD Flynn be able to charge the Russians for his military intel knowledge? If it was only $67,500 then he sold out cheap."

Or put another way, "How much does it cost to buy a national intelligence officer?"

It's one way the game is played. It tends to give an advantage to wealthy nations, which ought to be one of our advantages. We bought a  MIG-25 and a MIG-29 from the Russians but they cost a lot more than $67,500.

Shucks, my fuckin' BOAT costs more than that.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK so now we're arguing numbers. I guess once you start arguing over the price, we already know what you are.

How much SHOULD Flynn be able to charge the Russians for his military intel knowledge? If it was only $67,500 then he sold out cheap.

 

all right then - we've determined that you made up the "million's" flynn got from the russians, and that the judge apologized on the record for accusing flynn of being a consultant to turkey while also being nsa  aka a traitor.

now all you have to do is backup your claim that he was selling military intel to the russians for the $67K

i'll give you a hint for your search:  each of the three amounts listed were for speeches arranged by leading authorities inc.  one was in russia, the other two were in wash dc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

No, they can't. And if the FBI had evidence he betrayed the country they would surely have charged him.

Already given the reference to actions where he breaks the law. Whether it amounts to treason would be down to a jury if charged. He's plead out and cooperating to help with bigger fish. You don't charge someone with treason when you are flipping them for higher ups. You use the potential for that charge as leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Already given the reference to actions where he breaks the law. Whether it amounts to treason would be down to a jury if charged. He's plead out and cooperating to help with bigger fish. You don't charge someone with treason when you are flipping them for higher ups. You use the potential for that charge as leverage.

Yepper. Dog knows that . I'm always disappointed with leadership, especially military, when things go tits up. Been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mike G said:

This is normal, right?

 

 

 

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hermetic said:

all right then - we've determined that you made up the "million's" flynn got from the russians, and that the judge apologized on the record for accusing flynn of being a consultant to turkey while also being nsa  aka a traitor.

Umm, no. That's what YOU determined for the sake of reinforcing your prejudices.

now all you have to do is backup your claim that he was selling military intel to the russians for the $67K

i'll give you a hint for your search:  each of the three amounts listed were for speeches arranged by leading authorities inc.  one was in russia, the other two were in wash dc

Just because it says "sausage" on the label doesn't mean the package contains sausage.

Or that you should eat it.

Do you believe that when the national security apparatus finds a threat to the USA, they should first check to see if it helps Republicans before they investigate?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going need somebody to clean up some @Dog shit here, stat!

Quote

 

 In an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "Cuomo Prime Time," Giuliani, a former New York mayor and Trump's attorney, said he doesn't know if other people in the campaign, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, were working with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential race.
 
"I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign," Giuliani said.
He added, "I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shades of Watergate.

"What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Shades of Watergate.

"What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Ghouliani sounds like he's strapping on his parachute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope it turns out to be just a backpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Lets hope it turns out to be just a backpack.

It was supposed to be a parachute but is now just a backpack with shares of M&M Industries inside.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Already given the reference to actions where he breaks the law. Whether it amounts to treason would be down to a jury if charged. He's plead out and cooperating to help with bigger fish. You don't charge someone with treason when you are flipping them for higher ups. You use the potential for that charge as leverage.

What you have given is your own opinion which by your own standard is irrelevant. 

Whether the offense you imagine would amount to a crime would be down to a jury but that's not going to happen so it will have to exist only in your imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

We're going need somebody to clean up some @Dog shit here, stat!

I anxiously await the recitation of authorized talking points, explaining how it isn't what it seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
16 hours ago, hermetic said:

all right then - we've determined that you made up the "million's" flynn got from the russians, and that the judge apologized on the record for accusing flynn of being a consultant to turkey while also being nsa  aka a traitor.

Umm, no. That's what YOU determined for the sake of reinforcing your prejudices.

now all you have to do is backup your claim that he was selling military intel to the russians for the $67K

i'll give you a hint for your search:  each of the three amounts listed were for speeches arranged by leading authorities inc.  one was in russia, the other two were in wash dc

Just because it says "sausage" on the label doesn't mean the package contains sausage.

Or that you should eat it.

Do you believe that when the national security apparatus finds a threat to the USA, they should first check to see if it helps Republicans before they investigate?

your problem is that you have no facts to back up your claims (for like the third time in this thread alone) about flynn.  and even after confronted with the truth, you wait a few weeks then throw the same made up bullshit out here again.  some here would claim that no matter how many times you try and pass that bullshit as facts, it doesn't make it true.  they have even coined a term for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

your problem is that you have no facts to back up your claims (for like the third time in this thread alone) about flynn.  and even after confronted with the truth, you wait a few weeks then throw the same made up bullshit out here again.  some here would claim that no matter how many times you try and pass that bullshit as facts, it doesn't make it true.  they have even coined a term for it

Yes, I believe the term is "irony"

One mistake in numbers does not at all change the basic facts of what I have posted. Flynn took a LOT of money from the Russians. He must be one hell of a speech giver, and just one of those coincidences that he was a general in intel. The judge apologized for speaking inappropriately, not for calling him a traitor. If you're so determined to have the facts, they're right in plain sight.

OTOH if you're sitting in the rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic, determined to never never ever admit the ship might be sinking, just a little, then that's only human nature. Not a good idea, not the path to a better future either.

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 8:34 AM, Steam Flyer said:

We do know that he was paid tens of millions of dollars in "consulting fees" by Russia

Last, we know that a Republican-appointed judge, who saw the unredacted list of Flynn's misdeeds, was so angry that he openly called him a traitor in court.

these are the two claims you made.  they are both false.

even after you move the goalposts, they are still false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

I anxiously await the recitation of authorized talking points, explaining how it isn't what it seems to be.

What does it seem to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

What does it seem to be?

Well, since my comment was to Clove's post about Rudy contradicting the President, it seems we may see where those in the campaign did collude.  

Would this be dismissed as a "fairy tale" or "fiction" by you?  You seem rather fond of putting that out there as if you have all of the information that Mueller has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

What does it seem to be?

 

C.O.L.L.U.S.I.O.N.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, since my comment was to Clove's post about Rudy contradicting the President, it seems we may see where those in the campaign did collude.  

Would this be dismissed as a "fairy tale" or "fiction" by you?  You seem rather fond of putting that out there as if you have all of the information that Mueller has.

Rudy didn't contridict the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Rudy didn't contridict the president.

Really?  So, the President claiming no one in his campaign colluded is Fake News?

Remember the "Smocking Gun" Tweet?

I fully expect you will torture the English language in a way that you believe changes the meaning of what the President has repeatedly stated.

And, it will be bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Rudy didn't contridict the president.

I had a friend who had a little terrier type dog, that would run repeatedly into a wall headfirst at full speed, when certain songs came on the radio. ("Magic Carpet Ride" was one of them). Eventually the little dog became so brain damaged they had to have him euthanized. It was very sad. He was a cute little guy when he wasn't self destructing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Really?  So, the President claiming no one in his campaign colluded is Fake News?

Remember the "Smocking Gun" Tweet?

I fully expect you will torture the English language in a way that you believe changes the meaning of what the President has repeatedly stated.

And, it will be bullshit.

Yes really, or at least as far as I know. What did Trump say that Rudy contradicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I had a friend who had a little terrier type dog, that would run repeatedly into a wall headfirst at full speed, when certain songs came on the radio. ("Magic Carpet Ride" was one of them). Eventually the little dog became so brain damaged they had to have him euthanized. It was very sad. He was a cute little guy when he wasn't self destructing.

Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes really, or at least as far as I know. What did Trump say that Rudy contradicted?

Pay careful attention to what the President says at 0:37.  Flat denial of collusion involving his campaign.

President Trump denying collusion

Being able to understand English, and being knowledgeable about what is afoot when someone abruptly changes their story, it is clear Mr. Giuliani is backing off his previous assertions of no collusion involving the campaign.

I fully expect you to play some words games to deny this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hermetic said:

these are the two claims you made.  they are both false.

even after you move the goalposts, they are still false

Here's where we come up hard against a disagreement on facts. I prefer facts. You seem to prefer "facts" or perhaps "truthiness." The fact is that I made one mistake in stating a number, and corrected it, and everything else I have stated is absolutely true (meaning, it reflects what is verifiable in multiple sources in the real world).

Electricity is not mentioned in the Bible, but somehow people who insist that the Bible is all you need still have electricity in their houses.

Funny how that works.

Did Flynn take a LOT of money from the Russians, yes or no.

Are you certain what he was paid that money for, what made him so valuable to the Russians? Are you certain that it's just a coincidence that he was highly placed in the Trump campaign, and just happened to be a former intel general?

Are you certain what the unpublished portions of the statements from the Mueller investigation said about Flynn's actions? That judge is. Did the Judge say, "I apologize for calling you a traitor because you are not one? (or words to that effect)?"

Yes or no? It's pretty simple really. I understand how it's much nicer in the comfort zone of denial, but it doesn't lead to good results, just like denying that electricity exists.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Pay careful attention to what the President says at 0:37.  Flat denial of collusion involving his campaign.

President Trump denying collus

29 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Pay careful attention to what the President says at 0:37.  Flat denial of collusion involving his campaign.

President Trump denying collusion

Being able to understand English, and being knowledgeable about what is afoot when someone abruptly changes their story, it is clear Mr. Giuliani is backing off his previous assertions of no collusion involving the campaign.

I fully expect you to play some words games to deny this.

ion

Being able to understand English, and being knowledgeable about what is afoot when someone abruptly changes their story, it is clear Mr. Giuliani is backing off his previous assertions of no collusion involving the campaign.

I fully expect you to play some words games to deny this.

Dude...When Rudy denies that he ever said there was no collusion he is clearly talking about himself. He's not saying the Trump never said there was no collusion.

Obviously,  neither Trump or Rudy knows what every member of the campaign was up to all the time. Trump made an assertion he can't know to be true. Rudy was more careful and refrained from making an assertion he can't know to be true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump team's collusion denials:

1) No contact

2) No collusion
3) Contacts not *planned*
4) Okay planned, but not re: campaign (adoption, etc)
5) Okay, campaign related, but not meaningful or used (nothingburger)
6) Collusion is not a crime
7) Can't collude if you don't know Putin
8) Repeat 6
9) Maybe *someone* colluded

The report is coming. I suspect it's going to be even worse than we thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...When Rudy denies that he ever said there was no collusion he is clearly talking about himself. He's not saying the Trump never said there was no collusion.

Really?  Check this out.  (Note this should start at 33 min 17 seconds.  First time I have tried this.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

these are the two claims you made.  they are both false.

even after you move the goalposts, they are still false

Here's where we come up hard against a disagreement on facts. I prefer facts. You seem to prefer "facts" or perhaps "truthiness." The fact is that I made one mistake in stating a number, and corrected it, and everything else I have stated is absolutely true (meaning, it reflects what is verifiable in multiple sources in the real world).

Electricity is not mentioned in the Bible, but somehow people who insist that the Bible is all you need still have electricity in their houses.

Funny how that works.

Did Flynn take a LOT of money from the Russians, yes or no.

Are you certain what he was paid that money for, what made him so valuable to the Russians? Are you certain that it's just a coincidence that he was highly placed in the Trump campaign, and just happened to be a former intel general?

Are you certain what the unpublished portions of the statements from the Mueller investigation said about Flynn's actions? That judge is. Did the Judge say, "I apologize for calling you a traitor because you are not one? (or words to that effect)?"

Yes or no? It's pretty simple really. I understand how it's much nicer in the comfort zone of denial, but it doesn't lead to good results, just like denying that electricity exists.

I have shown the facts relating to those two claims in this thread.  you have shown no facts whatsoever.  none.  not even truthiness.  neither is verifiable

all you've shown is bullshit that you made up.  you need to eat it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Really?  Check this out.  (Note this should start at 33 min 17 seconds.  First time I have tried this.)

 

Thank you...So Rudy has in fact said that there was no collusion and his recent statement that he never said such a thing is false....got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Really?  Check this out.  (Note this should start at 33 min 17 seconds.  First time I have tried this.)

 

Yup 33:17 it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I have shown the facts relating to those two claims in this thread.  you have shown no facts whatsoever.  none.  not even truthiness.  neither is verifiable

all you've shown is bullshit that you made up.  you need to eat it

Tough talk from someone who slinks away when they are called out on their bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I have shown the facts relating to those two claims in this thread.  you have shown no facts whatsoever.  none.  not even truthiness.  neither is verifiable

all you've shown is bullshit that you made up.  you need to eat it

 

Umm, no, the reason you say "bullshit" is that you don't like it.

Facts are still what's real, even when you wish it weren't true.

Did Flynn take a heck of a lot of money fromt he Russians, yes or no? Do you know the reason, yes or now? Do you believe it's just a coincidence that he was an intel general, and highly placed in the Trump campaign, yes or no? Have you seen a transcript of Judge Sullivan's apology, yes or no?

I have.

Were you aware that Flynn's main partner in this "consulting business" has also been charged with multiple felonies relating to this?

"No collusion!!"

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

Thank you...So Rudy has in fact said that there was no collusion and his recent statement that he never said such a thing is false....got it.

 What happened to the Dog I've always known.  You are  off your game. Here is what was said:

Guy Benson: "Regardless of whether collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion whatsoever on behalf of the Trump campaign?"

Rudy Giuliani:  "Correct."

Rudy never said there was no collusion.  He just said "Correct."

Please don't let this happen again.

hqdefault.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, benwynn said:

 What happened to the Dog I've always known.  You are  off your game. Here is what was said:

Guy Benson: "Regardless of whether collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion whatsoever on behalf of the Trump campaign?"

Rudy Giuliani:  "Correct."

Rudy never said there was no collusion.  He just said "Correct."

Please don't let this happen again.

hqdefault.jpg

 

Ben Ben Ben...The point I was refuting was that Rudy did not contradict Trump. Admitting he  contradicted himself is a throw away concession. Furthermore the TDS afflicted obviously read Rudy's saying that he never said there was no collusion as an admission that there was in fact collusion. A contention that appears now to have been wisely dropped.

Victory is mine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ben Ben Ben...The point I was refuting was that Rudy did not contradict Trump. Admitting he  contradicted himself is a throw away concession. Furthermore the TDS afflicted obviously read Rudy's saying that he never said there was no collusion as an admission that there was in fact collusion. A contention that appears now to have been wisely dropped.

Victory is mine!

Good dog. 

tenor.gif?itemid=7414345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ben Ben Ben...The point I was refuting was that Rudy did not contradict Trump. Admitting he  contradicted himself is a throw away concession. Furthermore the TDS afflicted obviously read Rudy's saying that he never said there was no collusion as an admission that there was in fact collusion. A contention that appears now to have been wisely dropped.

Victory is mine!

Does Rudy's statement agree with, or contradict, President Trump's statements?

President Trump is very clear collusion did not occur between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Rudy is backing away from his earlier pronouncements and ducking for cover.

Before you answer, imagine we were discussing Hillary and her henchmen.  We all know how you'd view that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

We're going need somebody to clean up some @Dog shit here, stat!

 

So, basically the President's own attorney just stated there was collusion. Which means that Mueller's investigation is completely legitimate. Hope he nails the bastards to the wall. If Trump was too stupid to know what was going on, I wouldn't be surprised. He's always been surrounded by grifters grabbing crumbs, why would now be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Does Rudy's statement agree with, or contradict, President Trump's statements?

President Trump is very clear collusion did not occur between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Rudy is backing away from his earlier pronouncements and ducking for cover.

Before you answer, imagine we were discussing Hillary and her henchmen.  We all know how you'd view that scenario.

Rudy's statement had to do with what he had or had not said earlier. It neither agrees with or contradicts anything Trump has said as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

So, basically the President's own attorney just stated there was collusion. Which means that Mueller's investigation is completely legitimate. Hope he nails the bastards to the wall. If Trump was too stupid to know what was going on, I wouldn't be surprised. He's always been surrounded by grifters grabbing crumbs, why would now be any different?

Bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Rudy's statement had to do with what he had or had not said earlier. It neither agrees with or contradicts anything Trump has said as far as I can tell.

Yes, as far as you can tell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

 

So...Does Rudy saying that he had not said there was no collusion contridact that?

It does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Dude...When Rudy denies that he ever said there was no collusion he is clearly talking about himself. He's not saying the Trump never said there was no collusion.

Obviously,  neither Trump or Rudy knows what every member of the campaign was up to all the time. Trump made an assertion he can't know to be true. Rudy was more careful and refrained from making an assertion he can't know to be true.

 

Dog - no BS - you would do a WAY better job at explaining this shit than anyone Trump has on staff. You would probably end up convincing about 30% of the country Putin and Hillary had babies that grew up to staff the FBI and they all hate Republicans.

We need to give the Dog his due. If you read his stuff you feel your brain twisting......like maybe ........could work that way............... and then you recover.
With Trump's minions you just feel insulted that not only do they lie, they don't respect you enough to even make it a good lie :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

So...Does Rudy saying that he had not said there was no collusion contridact that?

It does not.

Yes, as far as you can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

I have shown the facts relating to those two claims in this thread.  you have shown no facts whatsoever.  none.  not even truthiness.  neither is verifiable

all you've shown is bullshit that you made up.  you need to eat it

 

Umm, no, the reason you say "bullshit" is that you don't like it.

Facts are still what's real, even when you wish it weren't true.

Did Flynn take a heck of a lot of money fromt he Russians, yes or no? Do you know the reason, yes or now? Do you believe it's just a coincidence that he was an intel general, and highly placed in the Trump campaign, yes or no? Have you seen a transcript of Judge Sullivan's apology, yes or no? 

I have.

unbelievable, you just made something else up.  that you're incapable of showing any facts that backup your claims is funny, but this new one is so boneheaded it's hilarious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

unbelievable, you just made something else up.  that you're incapable of showing any facts that backup your claims is funny, but this new one is so boneheaded it's hilarious

When a rightie can't bring himself to answer a couple of simple yes-or-no questions, and claims to be amused........ it's better than the smell of napalm in the morning.

Apologies for the head exploding, I thought you were actually one of the serious ones. Or maybe you're just tired of WINNING!!!! now?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hermetic said:

unbelievable, you just made something else up.  that you're incapable of showing any facts that backup your claims is funny, but this new one is so boneheaded it's hilarious

SF is not big on reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Rudy's statement had to do with what he had or had not said earlier. It neither agrees with or contradicts anything Trump has said as far as I can tell.

Goleee, you use your mouth purtier than a 20 dollar whore!  Just keep twisting!

Would you please punctuate this sentence so it reads correctly?"

John where James had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

unbelievable, you just made something else up.  that you're incapable of showing any facts that backup your claims is funny, but this new one is so boneheaded it's hilarious

SF is not big on reality.

Did Flynn get a LOT of money from Russia, yes or no. Is Flynn's major partner in his "consulting" business facing serious charges pertaining to Russia? Can you quote Judge Sullivan's apology where he says to Flynn words to the effect of "You're not a traitor after all," yes or no.

I have the feeling you're not going to answer these questions.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

unbelievable, you just made something else up.  that you're incapable of showing any facts that backup your claims is funny, but this new one is so boneheaded it's hilarious

When a rightie can't bring himself to answer a couple of simple yes-or-no questions, and claims to be amused

ok, this is fun - i'll play a little longer

Did Flynn take a heck of a lot of money fromt he Russians, yes or no?  no, I dont think $67K for 3 speeches is a heck of a lot of money

Do you know the reason, yes or now?  the 3 speeches were:

to Volga charter airlines (Washington dc) in aug 2015

to Kaspersky gov't security (Washington dc) in oct 2015 

to RT  (Moscow) in dec 2015

Do you believe it's just a coincidence that he was an intel general, and highly placed in the Trump campaign, yes or no?  I believe he got paid to make those speeches because he is a security expert and had strong views on the threats of terrorism.

and considering he made the speeches in 2015, and joined the trump campaign as an advisor in feb 2016, you made up that he was "highly placed in the trump campaign"

Have you seen a transcript of Judge Sullivan's apology, yes or no?   yes, I posted it in #15099

there's your answers.  now lets see if you can come up with some facts to support your claims.  I don't think you will, as their made up - instead you'll move the goal posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 Is Flynn's major partner in his "consulting" business facing serious charges pertaining to Russia?

again with the truthiness of flyer

it's turkey.  not russia, turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 12:57 PM, hermetic said:

court transcript:

THE COURT: All right. I just want to ask a couple of questions. This is directed to either government counsel or defense counsel. I made a statement about Mr. Flynn acting as a foreign agent while serving in the White House. I may have misspoken. Does that need to be corrected?

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

THE COURT: All right. That’s what I thought, and I felt terrible about that. I just want the record clear on that. You agree with that, Counsel?

MR. KELNER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I also asked about — and this is very important — I also asked about the Special Counsel’s Office. I also asked questions about the Special Counsel and the — and other potential offenses for the purpose of understanding the benefit, if any, that Mr. Flynn has received in the plea deal. I wasn’t suggesting he’s committed treason. I wasn’t suggesting he committed violations. I was just curious as to whether or not he could have been charged, and I gave a few examples.

[snip]

THE COURT: And I said early on, Don’t read too much into the questions I ask. But I’m not suggesting he committed treason. I just asked a legitimate question.

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor. And that affords us an opportunity to clarify something on our end which is, with respect to treason, I said I wanted to make sure I had the statute in front of me. The government has no reason to believe that the defendant committed treason; not just at the time, but having proffered with the defendant and spoken with him through 19 interviews, no concerns with respect to the issue of treason.

So you did, great.

Now point out the part where he apologizes for saying that Mr Flynn was a traitor........ Judge Sullivan (The Court) backs away from saying that Flynn could be charged with treason, but does not apologize for that.

BTW with regard to your timeline you're so proud of, notice the date quoted..... mid-november 2016, not a year and a half earlier............

I suggest you're grabbing at straws. Only natural when you don't-support such a sleazy trainwreck as the Trump Administration

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 12:57 PM, hermetic said:

court transcript:

THE COURT: All right. I just want to ask a couple of questions. This is directed to either government counsel or defense counsel. I made a statement about Mr. Flynn acting as a foreign agent while serving in the White House. I may have misspoken. Does that need to be corrected?

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

THE COURT: All right. That’s what I thought, and I felt terrible about that. I just want the record clear on that. You agree with that, Counsel?

MR. KELNER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I also asked about — and this is very important — I also asked about the Special Counsel’s Office. I also asked questions about the Special Counsel and the — and other potential offenses for the purpose of understanding the benefit, if any, that Mr. Flynn has received in the plea deal. I wasn’t suggesting he’s committed treason. I wasn’t suggesting he committed violations. I was just curious as to whether or not he could have been charged, and I gave a few examples.

[snip]

THE COURT: And I said early on, Don’t read too much into the questions I ask. But I’m not suggesting he committed treason. I just asked a legitimate question.

MR. VAN GRACK: Yes, Your Honor. And that affords us an opportunity to clarify something on our end which is, with respect to treason, I said I wanted to make sure I had the statute in front of me. The government has no reason to believe that the defendant committed treason; not just at the time, but having proffered with the defendant and spoken with him through 19 interviews, no concerns with respect to the issue of treason.

So you did, great.

Now point out the part where he apologizes for saying that Mr Flynn was a traitor........ Judge Sullivan (The Court) backs away from saying that Flynn could be charged with treason, but does not apologize for that.

BTW with regard to your timeline you're so proud of, notice the date quoted..... mid-november 2016, not a year and a half earlier............

I suggest you're grabbing at straws. Only natural when you don't-support such a sleazy trainwreck as the Trump Administration

holy shit, here we go again with the comedy.  turkey is not russia - look at a map.  that's two posts in a row

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hermetic said:

holy shit, here we go again with the comedy.  turkey is not russia - look at a map.  that's two posts in a row

....... you seem to veer away sharply from the facts......

just exactly who was it that Flynn pled guilty to lying about talking to, Russia or Turkey?

In the timeline GIVEN IN COURT was Flynn working for the Trump campaign during these offenses?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, and this has never happened before, I'm craving a turkey Reuben, with pastrami, grilled onion, Russian dressing, Swiss cheese, on Kurdish rye bread, slightly toasted.... Maybe some pickle juice drizzled just before it gets closed up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

....... you seem to veer away sharply from the facts......

just exactly who was it that Flynn pled guilty to lying about talking to, Russia or Turkey?

In the timeline GIVEN IN COURT was Flynn working for the Trump campaign during these offenses?

-DSK

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

What you have given is your own opinion which by your own standard is irrelevant.

Incorrect. I have laid out the facts. Flynn swore to negotiating with the Russians on foreign policy in conflict with Obama's current policies. He did so without authorisation from the federal government. That is a breach of the Logan Act. Which makes it a crime. 

 

9 hours ago, Dog said:

Whether the offense you imagine would amount to a crime would be down to a jury but that's not going to happen so it will have to exist only in your imagination.

A jury is not necessary to know he committed the crime, merely to punish him for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

In the timeline GIVEN IN COURT was Flynn working for the Trump campaign during these offenses?

 

No.

 

Really?

 

42 minutes ago, hermetic said:

(Prosecutor): Yes, Your Honor, that would be correct, which is that the conduct ended, I believe, in mid-November 2016.

 

This is really really stupid, even by your new lower standards

BTW hermetic thanks for providing the transcript

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

Incorrect. I have laid out the facts. Flynn swore to negotiating with the Russians on foreign policy in conflict with Obama's current policies. He did so without authorisation from the federal government. That is a breach of the Logan Act. Which makes it a crime. 

 

A jury is not necessary to know he committed the crime, merely to punish him for it. 

Take it up with Mueller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Take it up with Mueller.

Why should I? He hasn't contradicted my reasoning at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Really?

 

 

This is really really stupid, even by your new lower standards

BTW hermetic thanks for providing the transcript

-DSK

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Why should I? He hasn't contradicted my reasoning at all.

Neither has he embraced it, nor will he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Why does the court say "the conduct ended in mid-November 2016" which means that it was continuing before that?

Never mind.

Have fun in doggy Trump-lover fantasy-land

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Neither has he embraced it, nor will he.

Of course he has.  I stated earlier, he is using it as leverage forcing Flynn to cooperate. My reasoning and how I would use it in his place is completely in line by Mueller's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

In September of 2016, after the election and while he was a member of the transition team, Flynn was in talks with the Turkish government about his getting paid to get the US to return Fatullah Gulen for his suspected role in a 2015 aborted coup. One month after that coup attempt was when Turkey first hired him.

These contacts were not disclosed and are essentially why FARA laws are on the books.

He also didn’t report contacts he had with Russia during this period. Both on required federal disclosures and during in-person interviews.

Splitting hairs is fine, but the guy was dirty, according to US laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

In September of 2016, after the election and while he was a member of the transition team, Flynn was in talks with the Turkish government about his getting paid to get the US to return Fatullah Gulen for his suspected role in a 2015 aborted coup. One month after that coup attempt was when Turkey first hired him.

These contacts were not disclosed and are essentially why FARA laws are on the books.

He also didn’t report contacts he had with Russia during this period. Both on required federal disclosures and during in-person interviews.

Splitting hairs is fine, but the guy was dirty, according to US laws.

 

Careful there, the Trumpettes don't like these harsh facts raining all over their fantasy land.

Dog has gone far past splitting hairs into outright lying, that's the only way he can sustain the vision. Not sure what went wrong with H, he seemed to have a good bit of common sense until a short while ago.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Dog has gone far past splitting hairs into outright lying, that's the only way he can sustain the vision. Not sure what went wrong with H, he seemed to have a good bit of common sense until a short while ago.

It's the desperation. Folks like Dog are used to defending the party from uncomfortable actions by obfuscation, deflection, and distraction. The establishment politicians know this is how the game is played and so tend to provide plausible deniability. Trump and his team are amateurs, so when they do something stupid and/or illegal, they go all in and give Dog very little to work with. 

Dog's left with inane stupidity as his only option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Giving old Tom a run for the most pedantic asshole on the forum I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador occured when he was part of the transition team. The campaign was over.

Giving old Tom a run for the most pedantic asshole on the forum I see.

Next he'll be dragging in "You can keep your doctor" just for shits and giggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Next he'll be dragging in "You can keep your doctor" just for shits and giggles.

But, but her emails!

BENGHAZI!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can things continue before they happen? What is the proper term for that?..... I'm pretty good at words, but this one has me stymied....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

Can things continue before they happen? What is the proper term for that?..... I'm pretty good at words, but this one has me stymied....

It's a presequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Dude...When Rudy denies that he ever said there was no collusion he is clearly talking about himself. He's not saying the Trump never said there was no collusion.

Obviously,  neither Trump or Rudy knows what every member of the campaign was up to all the time. Trump made an assertion he can't know to be true. Rudy was more careful and refrained from making an assertion he can't know to be true.

 

 (and I'm not a Dude)

Giuliani... The Washington Post notes, that simply isn’t true:

In December 2017, Trump adamantly told reporters outside the White House that there was “absolutely no collusion, that has been proven.”

On Twitter, the president has been even more passionate when defending himself and his campaign, repeatedly using words such as “hoax” and “witch hunt” to describe the accusations and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s ongoing probe.

Just last month, the president tweeted, “‘Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun…No Collusion.'”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kirwan said:
8 hours ago, Dog said:

Rudy's statement had to do with what he had or had not said earlier. It neither agrees with or contradicts anything Trump has said as far as I can tell.

Goleee, you use your mouth purtier than a 20 dollar whore!  Just keep twisting!

Would you please punctuate this sentence so it reads correctly?"

John where James had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

The Mutt sounds almost like a lawyer there.

All it needs is a few "whereas" and "hereinafter referred to as" and it would be very convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

 Just last month, the president tweeted, “‘Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun…No Collusion.'”

There's a gun for doing smocking?

image.png.bac80d15c3c54f588af8a634758c066d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

There's a gun for doing smocking?

image.png.bac80d15c3c54f588af8a634758c066d.png

It was a clever dodge for him to avoid being caught in (another) lie.  Giuliani thunk it up.  Covfefe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spelling  mistake gang strikes again,  colloquially known as the Bad Grammar gang,  their credo: "No your honor,  that's what I said, not what I meant."

When used in conjunction with their widely known "Baffle em with bullshit"  approach it proved  a good ruse until Detectives Schumer and Pelosi got appointed to the beat, bullshitters themselves, they could spot an amateur a mile away. And that folks is were things started to go downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

It's a presequel.

No.... I think that might be close.

 I have the smartest man that I know who's still alive, cogitating upon this question. He was a bit flummoxed that he didn't have a ready answer for me.

 (Harvard law 1948)

 (I hate to call in a Cantab, when all my old guard have been Yale, but sadly, most of the Eli's have crossed the barr..... so to speak)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites