Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

They stated they didn’t.  Talked about it twice never bothered   

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a "defensive briefing" to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official "to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign," Lynch said. 

It didn't happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the "late spring" of 2016, according to Lynch's testimony.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You don't know that they didn't. There are other ways of giving a campaign the "heads up" than a full defensive brief. The "logic" you're trying to apply is like saying a mugger couldn't possibly have hit that woman because he didn't break her legs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the facts are not in your favor, argue the law. When the law is not in your favor, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are in your favor, yell, scream, pound the table, attack the prosecutor and law enforcement, and throw shit around, and hope that the jury are abject morons. 

Share this post


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

They stated they didn’t.  Talked about it twice never bothered   

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a "defensive briefing" to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official "to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign," Lynch said. 

It didn't happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the "late spring" of 2016, according to Lynch's testimony.

 

We know how resistant Trump was to outside efforts to influence his personnel decisions. The outgoing president himself warned Trump about Michael Flynn in November 2016. Elijah Cummings, then the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee requested addition information regarding Flynn’s financial disclosures and relationships with foreign governments.

And finally, the Acting Attourney General Sally Yates got fired for raising serious concerns about the National Security Advisor. 

And thinking his doc would be perfect for the Veterans Affairs job despite his nickname “the candy man” shows Trumps lax personnel vetting procedures. Throughout his administration he’s had hirings, firings, failed nominations and embarrassing hearings. His people are incompetent, unprepared, unknowledgeable and unethical. 

So, although I’m sure you’d like to blame anyone else for another team Trump terrible pick, it’s just part of his pattern of inept leadership and maladministration. The information was available to his team, they chose not to seek it out whenever it suited them. Page’s record would have been theirs for the asking, if they’d bothered to read it. 

But remember, these morons don’t read. 

Share this post


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

Which is why some are wondering why Loretta Lynch and Comey didn’t give the Trump campaign a heads up once they learned Page was on their team.  

Hope Hicks said the campaign got a warning about Russian contacts, I don't recall the details off the top of my head.

OTOH Jeff Sessions said, indignantly, "There are none" which just goes to show that either he was kept in the dark (a theory that doesn't hold much water) or he's as big a liar as any of Trump's team.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Which is why some are wondering why Loretta Lynch and Comey didn’t give the Trump campaign a heads up once they learned Page was on their team.  

We know that Trump's campaign manager was an asset of Russian intelligence and laundered sketchy Russian money.  Given that, why would law enforcement share info with such a compromised campaign? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

We know that Trump's campaign manager was an asset of Russian intelligence and laundered sketchy Russian money.  Given that, why would law enforcement share info with such a compromised campaign? 

Ahhhh ha ha aha  ha ha ha ha 

I wondered what someone with a pithed brain would be like. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the next act in this tragedy, only Repugnicans are allowed to see the evidence, just in case it's not to their liking and they have to make some shit up. Again.

I'd really like to see Devin Nunes attacked by a herd of rabid fox bats.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/republicans-no-democrats-invited-to-see-documents-on-u-s-election-probe-idUSKCN1IN2E9?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+(News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News)

Share this post


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

I"m trying to understand your position, which is probably dumb on my part because there are jelly fish with more of a spine than you.

Are you saying in 2016 there was no reason or justification for the FBI to investigate ("spy!") on certain people in Trump's campaign?  Is that what you are saying?

No...There was cause for suspicion but no crime to be investigated. I'm saying that wrt Trump we still know of no crime yet the hunt for one goes on.

Ever since the election Democrats have been searching for ways to remove the elected president, they even gave the effort a name "The Resistance". Lawsuits alleging voting machine tampering. Appeals to electors not to follow the constitution. The introduction of articles of impeachment absent grounds. Violations of the emoluments clause (some here still cling to that one). Attempts to deem him deranged and removal under the 25 th amendment and to the extent that the Mueller investigation is a search for a crime to hang on Trump, it's part of the effort.

Every day brings new evidence that partisans in the FBI and DOJ were also active in the effort using the powers of government to subvert our democracy. The accumulating evidence includes evidence pertaining to the dubious circumstances surrounding the initiation of the FBI investigation of Trumps campaign. First they told us the investigation started with Carter Page's trip to Russia. Then they told us it was the Podadopoulos meeting with Downer (who coincidently donated $25,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation) but now we know neither story is true. Some of us would like the truth.

Share this post


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

No...There was cause for suspicion but no crime to be investigated. I'm saying that wrt Trump we still know of no crime yet the hunt for one goes on.

Ever since the election Democrats have been searching for ways to remove the elected president, they even gave the effort a name "The Resistance". Lawsuits alleging voting machine tampering. Appeals to electors not to follow the constitution. The introduction of articles of impeachment absent grounds. Violations of the emoluments clause (some here still cling to that one). Attempts to deem him deranged and removal under the 25 th amendment and to the extent that the Mueller investigation is a search for a crime to hang on Trump, it's part of the effort.

Every day brings new evidence that partisans in the FBI and DOJ were also active in the effort using the powers of government to subvert our democracy. The accumulating evidence includes evidence pertaining to the dubious circumstances surrounding the initiation of the FBI investigation of Trumps campaign. First they told us the investigation started with Carter Page's trip to Russia. Then they told us it was the Podadopoulos meeting with Downer (who coincidently donated $25,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation) but now we know neither story is true. Some of us would like the truth.

Cites please. 

Share this post


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

 No...There was cause for suspicion but no crime to be investigated. I'm saying that wrt Trump we still know of no crime yet the hunt for one goes on.

You're right. We don't know because we are not in the FBI investigating the issue. You do not know what Mueller knows. You keep making claims about what he does and doesn't know, but you've been demonstrably wrong about that when declaring him moving on from Russia (only to have Trump's team leak proposed interview questions proving that false). Quite frankly, like a few other slightly unhinged right-wingers of late, you've gone beyond your usual insinuations and tap-dancing around what you want to say into taking one or two stands... only to have Trump (or facts about him) pull the rug out from underneath you. And like the other unhinged right-wingers, instead of becoming more circumspect about what you will assert about the state of the investigation, it's motivations, etc - you're doubling down on the support hoping & praying for a big pay-off if Trump wins.

A little lesson for those that think that a wise course of action - recall Happy Jack's proclamations about Obama's assured loss in the presidential elections. That spineless coward is still smarting from that one and, let's face it, his sanity has suffered the brunt of the shame coming from that all-in hand.

 

5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Every day brings new evidence that partisans in the FBI and DOJ were also active in the effort using the powers of government to subvert our democracy. The accumulating evidence includes evidence pertaining to the dubious circumstances surrounding the initiation of the FBI investigation of Trumps campaign. First they told us the investigation started with Carter Page's trip to Russia. Then they told us it was the Podadopoulos meeting with Downer (who coincidently donated $25,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation) but now we know neither story is true. Some of us would like the truth.

Downer didn't donate any money to the Clinton Foundation. The Australian government did. He simply handed over our cheque. This has been dealt with before and you have most assuredly been corrected on that matter. You claim you want the truth but when you keep trying debunked bullshit like that, you prove you do not. Just whatever fiction makes the GOP look less tarnished by their choice of leadership.

Share this post


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

Hey @Dog

How do we know a crime has or has not been committed if we don't have an investigation?

Check the party affiliation, the way any dog with a nose for crime would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

Hey @Dog

How do we know a crime has or has not been committed if we don't have an investigation?

 

 

Ps, Downer is not worth $25,000,000..

We don't, but when an investigation into possible Russian collusion evolves into affairs with porn stars it's not unreasonable to suspect that the collusion thing was pretext.

Share this post


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

Check the party affiliation, the way any dog with a nose for crime would. 

Bla...bla...bla...

Share this post


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

We don't, but when an investigation into possible Russian collusion evolves into affairs with porn stars it's not unreasonable to suspect that the collusion thing was pretext.

Is Mueller investigating the porn  star matter or is an unrelated team handling that matter?

Share this post


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

...   ...    ...  I'm saying that wrt Trump we still know of no crime yet the hunt for one goes on.

...   ...   ...

Another fucking lie

There have been many crimes, many crimes. People already doing time.

It's certainly possible to declare that just because you don't like something, it doesn't exist, but it tells more about you than about things.

Repeating the lie over and over and over will not make it true

-DSK

Share this post


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

Another fucking lie

There have been many crimes, many crimes. People already doing time.

It's certainly possible to declare that just because you don't like something, it doesn't exist, but it tells more about you than about things.

Repeating the lie over and over and over will not make it true

-DSK

What part of "wrt Trump" do you not understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

Is Mueller investigating the porn  star matter or is an unrelated team handling that matter?

A related team to whom Mueller referred the matter.

Share this post


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

A related team to whom Mueller referred the matter.

How are they related? Are the covered by Muellers mandate?

Share this post


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

We don't, but when an investigation into possible Russian collusion evolves into affairs with porn stars it's not unreasonable to suspect that the collusion thing was pretext.

Mueller is not investigating porn stars. Why are you lying?

The US Attorney from Southern District New York is investigating Cohen's activities, which include payments to porn stars on behalf of Trump. That office is separate from Mueller's Special Counsel office. In any investigation, the prosecutor can refer crimes discovered outside their jurisdiction to the appropriate prosecutors office. If Trump hasn't committed any crimes, he's got nothing to worry about...and his cooperation would bring an end to the investigations sooner. 

Share this post


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

What part of "wrt Trump" do you not understand?

Is Trump the boss of his staff, or isn't he?

-DSK

Share this post


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

Is Trump the boss of his staff, or isn't he?

-DSK

Considering all the porn star payoffs, I'd say Trump's staff is largely out of control. 

Share this post


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

What part of "wrt Trump" do you not understand?

How did you categorize the Lois Lerner “confession”? 

Share this post


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

Is Trump the boss of his staff, or isn't he?

-DSK

He is, does that make him responsible for any crimes they may commit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Considering all the porn star payoffs, I'd say Trump's staff is largely out of control. 

Speaking of out of control, did you see the story today about West Hollywood giving Stormy the keys to the city?

If your ilk doesn't get over Trump and offer a positive reason to support Democrats you're going to get him re-elected.

Share this post


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

We don't, but when an investigation into possible Russian collusion evolves into affairs with porn stars it's not unreasonable to suspect that the collusion thing was pretext.

Good thing it hasn't evolved into that then. Mueller handed the investigation into Cohen's possible crimes off to SDNY remember? Mueller is still focused on the task he was set, no matter how many ways you try claiming he hasn't. Trump's lawyers are running around like chooks with their heads cut off precisely because he stated he would be asking Trump about Russia. The very same focus he was initially tasked with.

You're getting a bit shrill, Dog. The shit-posting trolls get away with pretending to be idiots, but you've tripped yourself up by showing a modicum of intelligence once too often. Which means, we know that you know you're lying. Just how low a self-esteem does one need to debase yourself as you do for someone as venal as Trump?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The New York Times has served up three origin stories. As each story has been served up in turn, the previous stories have been artfully deposited down the memory whole. The Times feels no need to explain the succession to its readers. They believe. They believe because it is absurd.

A critical reader might infer from the Times’s rewriting of the past with the assistance of its various unnamed government informants, to use the term of art employed by the Times in its most recent origin story, that each of these stories is mythical. That the Times’s informants are using the Times to hide the truth. That, to repeat myself, there’s a whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on".

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/true-origin-of-the-probe.php

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's admitted firing of Comey to get rid of the Russia thing isn't obstruction of justice? Well, that's a new one.

 

Share this post


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

No...There was cause for suspicion but no crime to be investigated. I'm saying that wrt Trump we still know of no crime yet the hunt for one goes on.

Ever since the election Republicans have been searching for ways to remove the elected president,

FIFY, again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did we get him yet? What plan are we executing today. Is it the "Mueller has the goods but is waiting for October" or is it the "Trump gambled it all away for a million smackers"?

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump could likely end this today with two words:  Tax Returns.   Of course it might not end well for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Trump could likely end this today with two words:  Tax Returns.   Of course it might not end well for him. 

what would you expect the tax returns to show?

and where in those tax returns would that information you're seeking be found?

Share this post


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

We don't, but when an investigation into possible Russian collusion evolves into affairs with porn stars it's not unreasonable to suspect that the collusion thing was pretext.

It's an investigation into Russian meddling in our election, not "collusion."  There is no crime called "collusion."   

Trump is a lying piece of shit that is about as crooked as they come (Trump U!).  And he surrounded himself with other lying pieces of shit.  

And you know damn well that Mueller's team handed off Stormy and is not involved in that sordidness. 

Share this post


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

Trump's admitted firing of Comey to get rid of the Russia thing isn't obstruction of justice? Well, that's a new one.

 

According to a third hand report from un-named sources in the NYT. There's not much future in that one.

Share this post


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

According to a third hand report from un-named sources in the NYT. There's not much future in that one.

Yeah, go with that. The rest of us will go ahead and re-watch the NBC interview where Trump admits it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

It's an investigation into Russian meddling in our election, not "collusion."  There is no crime called "collusion."   

Trump is a lying piece of shit that is about as crooked as they come (Trump U!).  And he surrounded himself with other lying pieces of shit.  

And you know damn well that Mueller's team handed off Stormy and is not involved in that sordidness. 

Stop bringing the truth into this, when you know that some folks just don't put the same priority on the truth that honest people do.  

 

That said, the Doggy Styling misinformation campaign IS working.  

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17384096/mueller-investigation-poll

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Stop bringing the truth into this, when you know that some folks just don't put the same priority on the truth that honest people do.  

 

That said, the Doggy Styling misinformation campaign IS working.  

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17384096/mueller-investigation-poll

Doggy style works. 

Share this post


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

what would you expect the tax returns to show?

and where in those tax returns would that information you're seeking be found?

I would expect those tax returns to show why Trump refuses to release them.  Where in them? Not a tax attorney but someone in the DOJ is.  The guilty dog barks first, and Trump is the biggest dog in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I would expect those tax returns to show why Trump refuses to release them.  Where in them? Not a tax attorney but someone in the DOJ is.  The guilty dog barks first, and Trump is the biggest dog in DC.

the tax returns won't show shit except grouped income and expenses

what you want to see are the business records of his llc's

and even those won't show who all the bond buyers / investors were

Share this post


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

the tax returns won't show shit except grouped income and expenses

what you want to see are the business records of his llc's

and even those won't show who all the bond buyers / investors were

So, what is one good reason he hasn't released them?  He promised.  He lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

So, what is one good reason he hasn't released them?  He promised.  He lied.

Yes he did.

Share this post


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

Go ahead, re-watch it...here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wvuw_Zmubg

 

I did. Firing someone to interfere with an investigation is called obstruction of justice. It's a crime. But you knew that.

Now go ahead and argue what Trump said is not what he meant, or he was being metaphorical, or that he didn't understand what he said, or anything else other than what he actually said. Trump is a criminal. He is unfit to serve the people of this country.

Share this post


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

Now go ahead and argue what Trump said is not what he meant, or he was being metaphorical, or that he didn't understand what he said, or anything else other than what he actually said. Trump is a criminal. He is unfit to serve the people of this country.

It was just locker room talk.

Share this post


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

It was just locker room talk.

Obstruction of justice. When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I did. Firing someone to interfere with an investigation is called obstruction of justice. It's a crime. But you knew that.

Now go ahead and argue what Trump said is not what he meant, or he was being metaphorical, or that he didn't understand what he said, or anything else other than what he actually said. Trump is a criminal. He is unfit to serve the people of this country.

I heard him say Comey was incompetent and btw firing Comey did not and could not end the investigation. I actually agree that he's unfit but then the choice was between two unfit candidates. As for him being a criminal, we don't even have a crime yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215656

excerpt -

Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, received a secret payment of at least $400,000 (£300,000) to fix talks between the Ukrainian president and President Trump, according to sources in Kiev close to those involved.

The payment was arranged by intermediaries acting for Ukraine's leader, Petro Poroshenko, the sources said, though Mr Cohen was not registered as a representative of Ukraine as required by US law.

The meeting at the White House was last June. 

Shortly after the Ukrainian president returned home, his country's anti-corruption agency stopped its investigation into Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I did. Firing someone to interfere with an investigation is called obstruction of justice. It's a crime. But you knew that.

Now go ahead and argue what Trump said is not what he meant, or he was being metaphorical, or that he didn't understand what he said, or anything else other than what he actually said. Trump is a criminal. He is unfit to serve the people of this country. as Dogcatcher of Mayberry, RFD.

 

FIFY M8!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's moral failings, and influence sold to foreign powers are without significance.    Republicans will forgive Trump of any offense.   It was said Trump could kill somebody and still be elected.  Our failed healthcare system certainly kills Americans.    A Palestinian exchange student just found a Texas school more dangerous then her homeland.     Trump apparently paid a woman to murder his baby (per Republican belief).    None of this matters.   The house pseudo-investigation proves they will protect him at any cost to the country.   Even if all Republican candidates turned out to have black blood or be child molesters, causing the House and Senate their Republican majorities, impeachment would give us the Pence Caliphate.    Personally I'm more worried about the 2020 elections.    If the Republican party is lost,  we need other leaders of moderate habits, backbone, moral fiber, and horse sense.   American democracy is on a slippery slope.   The problem with slippery slopes is there is no clear crises point.  You seem fine as you enjoy the view, until you are covered in filth with the rest of the bottom feeders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

So, what is one good reason he hasn't released them?  He promised.  He lied.

no idea

Share this post


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

no idea

It would provide a starting point for financial investigators.   The IRS didn't find anything, but likely had reason not to stir up a hornets nest and face further budget cuts.   I suspect forensic accountants working for the media would be more tenacious and work longer days in hope of a Pulitzer.   

Share this post


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

It would provide a starting point for financial investigators.   The IRS didn't find anything, but likely had reason not to stir up a hornets nest and face further budget cuts.   I suspect forensic accountants working for the media would be more tenacious and work longer days in hope of a Pulitzer.   

What would be the justification for conducting a financial investigation of Donald Trump?

Share this post


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

What would be the justification for conducting a financial investigation of Donald Trump?

Well - you could start with large, unexplained cash transfers that should up on banking reports.

Those are usually investigated. Why? To see if there's a crime involved.


Thanks for proving how investigations work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


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

What would be the justification for conducting a financial investigation of Donald Trump?

I seem to recall several against some historic old guy from Arkansas.  I forget his name, it was so long ago.   I think they might have turned up a few misdeeds by his cronies.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Well - you could start with large, unexplained cash transfers that should up on banking reports.

Those are usually investigated. Why? To see if there's a crime involved.


Thanks for proving how investigations work.

Clearly any agency charged with investigating  financial irregularities already has access to his returns.

Share this post


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

Clearly any agency charged with investigating  financial irregularities already has access to his returns.

Clearly Mueller had Trumpy's tax returns a long time ago.

Share this post


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

Clearly any agency charged with investigating  financial irregularities already has access to his returns.

oddly enough, those reports had gone missing at Treasury. imagine that?

Share this post


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

What would be the justification for conducting a financial investigation of Donald Trump?

A $25 million dollar fraud judgment? six bankruptcies, fair housing investigation of 39 buildings, 3500 lawsuits where he stiffed vendors, multiple fines, the list is ridiculously long.

Share this post


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

A $25 million dollar fraud judgment? six bankruptcies, fair housing investigation of 39 buildings, 3500 lawsuits where he stiffed vendors, multiple fines, the list is ridiculously long.

The hits keep coming, don't they @Dog

Share this post


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

A $25 million dollar fraud judgment? six bankruptcies, fair housing investigation of 39 buildings, 3500 lawsuits where he stiffed vendors, multiple fines, the list is ridiculously long.

Already investigated and settled.

Share this post


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

Already investigated and settled.

Yes, but it goes to reputation and honesty. All things that get evaluated when making an investigatory judgment call.

Share this post


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

Already investigated and settled.

that's a lie Dog, there's plenty more coming out of the Trump woodwork daily.

you just don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

that's a lie Dog, there's plenty more coming out of the Trump woodwork daily.

you just don't care.

Oh, he cares. I'm mystified that he keeps bringing up repeatedly disproven bullshit to justify his position. Those are not the actions of an honest interlocutor. I wonder why he is so consistently dishonest in the face of proven facts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh, he cares. I'm mystified that he keeps bringing up repeatedly disproven bullshit to justify his position. Those are not the actions of an honest interlocutor. I wonder why he is so consistently dishonest in the face of proven facts. 

Trump himself said why. Keep on the attack, so when the formerly reputable agencies investigate, they are called into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please....There is no known financial crime to be investigated. If you guys were as honest as you pretend you would admit you want his tax returns to advance the search for a crime.

 

Share this post


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

Oh please....There is no known financial crime to be investigated. If you guys were as honest as you pretend you would admit you want his tax returns to advance the search for a crime.

 

Actually, there is.

Transferring more than $10,000 is a transaction that needs to have certain info attached to it, because terrorism.

Making multiple transfers of just under $10k to avoid the report is a criminal act.

Trump is guilty of this, prima facie.

If you were not a traitor, you'd want to know what Trump was covering up. But you are one, and you want to help him cover whatever it is.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Clearly Mueller had Trumpy's tax returns a long time ago.

I would agree with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unmasking scandal was an outrageously outrageous outrage of outrageously outrageous proportion!

Share this post


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

Already investigated and settled.

The damage to your reputation is done. Wonder why so many people get frisked or questioned once a cop puts their name through a computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Johnson sniffed out the outrageously outrageous outrage of the secret society, which like the other outrages, had no proof of it. 

Share this post


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

Actually, there is.

Transferring more than $10,000 is a transaction that needs to have certain info attached to it, because terrorism.

Making multiple transfers of just under $10k to avoid the report is a criminal act.

Trump is guilty of this, prima facie.

If you were not a traitor, you'd want to know what Trump was covering up. But you are one, and you want to help him cover whatever it is.

-DSK

I think your referring to cash transactions. How do you know Trump did not comply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow, Obama wants to know everything we’re doing!  Sen. Johnson again. FBI texts. Taken out of context, to catapult the propaganda to outrageously outrageous proportion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. The FBI bid info from the court in the FISA app!!  That’s Watergate Times a thousand!

outrage!  

Whoops. Also not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh please....There is no known financial crime to be investigated. If you guys were as honest as you pretend you would admit you want his tax returns to advance the search for a crime.

 

I want them BECAUSE TRUMP SAID HE WOULD RELEASE THEM. Hold him to a promise, any promise with a real deliverable, asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

So much Doggy Style bullshitting to try to discredit an investigation. 

It's working. A majority of Americans polled don't know Mueller's actually found crimes http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389039-poll-majority-of-americans-dont-know-that-mueller-probe-has

Like Trump the shameless lying shitbags do it because it works. And when you call them out for being shameless lying shitbags preying upon the lazy stupidity of the public they whine. It's very effective late 2010s media posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

I want them BECAUSE TRUMP SAID HE WOULD RELEASE THEM. Hold him to a promise, any promise with a real deliverable, asshole.

Well....a rare point of agreement.

Share this post


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

Wiretapping Trump Tower was an outrageously outrageous outrage. 

 Trump Tower is an outrage. Have you seen that tacky POS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lying Malarky said:

Hey @Dog

How do we know a crime has or has not been committed if we don't have an investigation?

Because there was no conviction.

Suspicion alone is no reason to have an investigation.

Share this post


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

Because there was no conviction.

Suspicion alone is no reason to have an investigation.

Nor standard rules of evidence either, apparently. Eh @Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cnn says deep state criminal FBI gave Jared in law his clearance back.   WTF?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lark said:

cnn says deep state criminal FBI gave Jared in law his clearance back.   WTF?   

fike neuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Nor standard rules of evidence either, apparently. Eh @Dog

Oh I think that they still do.  You have to establish the party affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove guilt or innocence.  

Share this post


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

Because there was no conviction.

Suspicion alone is no reason to have an investigation.

Reasonable suspicion is grounds for investigating. Searching for a crime with which to remove an elected president is not. So what circumstances give rise to reasonable suspicion wrt Trump's financial dealings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Hillary pumped Uranium One to the Kremlin, from the basement next to the pizza joint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's working. A majority of Americans polled don't know Mueller's actually found crimes http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389039-poll-majority-of-americans-dont-know-that-mueller-probe-has

Like Trump the shameless lying shitbags do it because it works. And when you call them out for being shameless lying shitbags preying upon the lazy stupidity of the public they whine. It's very effective late 2010s media posturing.

I'm wrapped in denial. I can't believe what I am seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites