kent_island_sailor

The Trump Circle completes

Recommended Posts

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-defends-sons-meeting_us_5b66f184e4b0b15abaa42619

President Donald Trump on Sunday denied that he is concerned that his eldest son is a target of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, insisting that his son’s actions during his presidential campaign were “totally legal.” 

“This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” Trump said of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked attorney in June 2016.

 

ROFLMAO

This is *the* Trumpian system. First step in deny it all - FAKE NEWS!

After numerous lies and distractions and attempts to blame others, a few rounds of KGB whataboutism, and assorted Clintons did it too, we finally get round to "Well sure I did it, so what" :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


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

 

“This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” Trump said of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked attorney in June 2016.

 

 

@Dog

Trump just said the meeting WAS NOT about adoptions.  How about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they weren't so frightening, they'd make a great comedy act.

latest?cb=20130323152853

Share this post


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

@Dog

Trump just said the meeting WAS NOT about adoptions.  How about that?

Duh....The meeting was clearly prompted by Goldstone's email and the promise of dirt on Hillary.

Share this post


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

Duh....The meeting was clearly prompted by Goldstone's email and the promise of dirt on Hillary.

so what's your excuse for a years worth of bullshit lemming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so what's your excuse for a years worth of bullshit lemming?

Dog will say he never claimed the meeting was about adoptions.   

Share this post


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

so what's your excuse for a years worth of bullshit lemming?

Trump and Co. thought they were getting dirt on Hillary. What they actually got was a Magnitsky pitch.

I don't think I've misrepresented that so no excuse needed.

Share this post


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

No collusion!

well, maybe a little. 

 

4AF75468-DEEA-4863-A1EA-7622E6BA2EE7.jpeg

None yet. Over a year and 101 pages later.

Share this post


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

Trump and Co. thought they were getting dirt on Hillary. What they actually got was a Magnitsky pitch.

 

At 4:40 p.m., 40 minutes after the Trump Tower meeting was scheduled to begin, Trump responds to Clinton's tweet telling him to "delete your account" by asking Clinton about her "missing" emails.

"How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?" Trump tweets.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/trump-tower-meeting-timeline/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog's defense is they TRIED to commit a crime and failed.

Dog - let me parse this for you. Trying to rob a bank and not getting any money is still a crime AND it sure seemed like they did "get the money", just not right at that meeting right that second.

Props to Dog though for playing a weak hand, what do you all expect him to do with this mess?

Share this post


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

Dog's defense is they TRIED to commit a crime and failed.

Dog - let me parse this for you. Trying to rob a bank and not getting any money is still a crime AND it sure seemed like they did "get the money", just not right at that meeting right that second.

Props to Dog though for playing a weak hand, what do you all expect him to do with this mess?

No it's not... The Clinton campaign succeeded in procuring dirt on Trump from Kremlin connected Russians. The defense in that case is that the material was paid for and therefore somehow legit (even though we don't know if the Russian sources were paid). So if dirt can be procured from the Russians legally how do we know the Trump campaign would not have done it legally and how the hell can not procuring any dirt at all be illegal?

Not robbing a bank is not illegal.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The adoption story was never credible. That those "big shots" believed any reasonable person bought that story boggles the mind. 

Once again, lies and laws impede swift justice.

Share this post


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

Not robbing a bank is not illegal.

This will be Rudy's Monday Media blurt,  and an astonishing thing to say about an election and a hostile foreign power.

Are you saying that if you handed a robbery note to a teller in a bank but then left without getting fat stacks the cops WOULDN'T be wanting to have a word with you ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No it's not... The Clinton campaign succeeded in procuring dirt on Trump from Kremlin connected Russians. The defense in that case is that the material was paid for and therefore somehow legit (even though we don't know if the Russian sources were paid). So if dirt can be procured from the Russians legally how do we know the Trump campaign would not have done it legally and how the hell can not procuring any dirt at all be illegal?

Not robbing a bank is not illegal.

Dog - because I like you and don't want you in jail, please take this free legal advice:

If you walk into a bank, tell the bank teller "This is a holdup", and the bank teller says "GTFO, no money for you", you are still going to jail the pound. FYI

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

No it's not... The Clinton campaign succeeded in procuring dirt on Trump from Kremlin connected Russians. The defense in that case is that the material was paid for and therefore somehow legit (even though we don't know if the Russian sources were paid). So if dirt can be procured from the Russians legally how do we know the Trump campaign would not have done it legally and how the hell can not procuring any dirt at all be illegal?

Not robbing a bank is not illegal.

Where's the outrage??!!

Share this post


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

Dog - because I like you and don't want you in jail, please take this free legal advice:

If you walk into a bank, tell the bank teller "This is a holdup", and the bank teller says "GTFO, no money for you", you are still going to jail the pound. FYI

Thanks, I'll take that under advisement. How about this one.

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing. 

What law has been broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Great Red Shark said:

This will be Rudy's Monday Media blurt,  and an astonishing thing to say about an election and a hostile foreign power.

Are you saying that if you handed a robbery note to a teller in a bank but then left without getting fat stacks the cops WOULDN'T be wanting to have a word with you ?

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't mention bank robbery, attempted or otherwise, at all.

Share this post


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

Thanks, I'll take that under advisement. How about this one.

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing. 

What law has been broken?

So you take a pile of cash to a gun runner but he doesn't have what you are wanting, and you walk away?

 

What law has been committed?

Share this post


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

No, I'm not saying that. I didn't mention bank robbery, attempted or otherwise, at all.

Umm you literally said not robbing a bank is not illegal.

How is that not a mention of bank robbery?

you are getting dizzy from all that spinning.

 

 

Share this post


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

Umm you literally said not robbing a bank is not illegal.

How is that not a mention of bank robbery?

you are getting dizzy from all that spinning.

 

 

Quite right...Good on you. Now about the alledged collusion... 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Nothing of value is provided by either party.

that's a lie Dog.

Is it a crime to lie to Congress? Obstruction of Justice? Crime? Witness tampering? Crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

prove nothing was exchanged

Don't have to. The onus is on the one making the accusation...GO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So you take a pile of cash to a gun runner but he doesn't have what you are wanting, and you walk away?

 

What law has been committed?

Buying a gun from a gun runner is illegal, as is bank robbery. Obtaining dirt on a political opponent from the Russians is not.

Share this post


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

Quite right...Good on you. Now about the alledged collusion... 

No one but trump is talking collusion.  It’s not a crime anyway in and of itself which is why trump likes to talk about it. Anyway he admitted to collusion this AM.  Mueller is long past that and on to criminal conspiracy.  Junior is looking at a perjury charge thank that’s just the beginning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks, I'll take that under advisement. How about this one.

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing. 

What law has been broken?

Let's ask the question this way, back at you. 

Is it illegal for foreign agents to influence American elections by assisting Presidential Campaigns? 

If the answer is yes, then you must be support this investigation.

Russian agents with demonstrable ties to the Russian government met with the Trump Campaign in order to give them information about Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign point person said in an email "If its what you say it is, I love it!" means that there are potentially TWO directions the probe can go... after the Russian agent and after the Trump Campaign.

The investigation will deter Russia & other countries wishing to alter our electoral process, as well as deter future US Campaigns from straying too close to such sources of info. The investigation is part of our national electoral security, and opposing it is opposing our national security.

Which side are you on?

Share this post


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

Buying a gun from a gun runner is illegal, as is bank robbery. Obtaining dirt on a political opponent from the Russians is not.

Just to give Dog some spin ideas It’s not illegal in many countries....

Share this post


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

Let's ask the question this way, back at you. 

Is it illegal for foreign agents to influence American elections by assisting Presidential Campaigns? Apparently not... Google "dossier"

If the answer is yes, then you must be support this investigation.

Russian agents with demonstrable ties to the Russian government met with the Trump Campaign in order allededly to give them information about Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign point person said in an email "If its what you say it is, I love it!" means that there are potentially TWO directions the probe can go... after the Russian agent and after the Trump Campaign.

The investigation will deter Russia & other countries wishing to alter our electoral process, as well as deter future US Campaigns from straying too close to such sources of info. The investigation is part of our national electoral security, and opposing it is opposing our national security.

Which side are you on?

 

Share this post


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

Let's ask the question this way, back at you. 

Is it illegal for foreign agents to influence American elections by assisting Presidential Campaigns? Apparently not... Google "dossier"  YES.  It is illegal for foreign entities to provide anything of value to presidential (or other) campaigns.  Information has value.  

If the answer is yes, then you must be support this investigation.

Russian agents with demonstrable ties to the Russian government met with the Trump Campaign in order allededly - as the president himself has stated - to give them information about Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign point person said in an email "If its what you say it is, I love it!" means that there are potentially TWO directions the probe can go... after the Russian agent and after the Trump Campaign.

The investigation will deter Russia & other countries wishing to alter our electoral process, as well as deter future US Campaigns from straying too close to such sources of info. The investigation is part of our national electoral security, and opposing it is opposing our national security.

Which side are you on?

Fixed that for you, troll.  Which side are you on?

 

Share this post


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

Let's ask the question this way, back at you. 

Is it illegal for foreign agents to influence American elections by assisting Presidential Campaigns? Apparently not... Google "dossier"

If the answer is yes, then you must be support this investigation.

Russian agents with demonstrable ties to the Russian government met with the Trump Campaign in order allededly to give them information about Hillary Clinton. The Trump Campaign point person said in an email "If its what you say it is, I love it!" means that there are potentially TWO directions the probe can go... after the Russian agent and after the Trump Campaign.

The investigation will deter Russia & other countries wishing to alter our electoral process, as well as deter future US Campaigns from straying too close to such sources of info. The investigation is part of our national electoral security, and opposing it is opposing our national security.

Which side are you on?

Ok first, just quit with the "Hillary met with Russians!" line. I'd actually included a line in my post to rebut this before you whataboutid it, but I guess I overestimated your ability to stay on topic. Hillary hired a law firm who hired a group that looked into things. Only Trump Campaign Managers and high ranking folks met with Russians and directly discussed getting info on their opponent. Your false equivalence is, well, false.

And Trump confirmed in a tweet today that his campaign staff met with Russians at Trump Tower to discuss getting dirt on Hillary. So much for "allegedly." You are undercut by your leader, yet again. But don't feel too bad, seems he left his son twisting in the wind as well, since Donny Jr has already testified that the meeting was supposed to be about adoptions.

Share this post


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

Ok first, just quit with the "Hillary met with Russians!" line. I'd actually included a line in my post to rebut this before you whataboutid it, but I guess I overestimated your ability to stay on topic. Hillary hired a law firm who hired a group that looked into things. Only Trump Campaign Managers and high ranking folks met with Russians and directly discussed getting info on their opponent. Your false equivalence is, well, false.

And Trump confirmed in a tweet today that his campaign staff met with Russians at Trump Tower to discuss getting dirt on Hillary. So much for "allegedly." You are undercut by your leader, yet again. But don't feel too bad, seems he left his son twisting in the wind as well, since Donny Jr has already testified that the meeting was supposed to be about adoptions.

Christopher Steele is a foreign agent who assisted the Clinton campaign.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was about obtaining dirt that Natalia Veselnitskaya allegedly had but apperantly did not.

Share this post


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

Christopher Steele is a foreign agent who assisted the Clinton campaign.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was about obtaining dirt that Natalia Veselnitskaya allegedly had but apperantly did not.

So one is a foreign agent and the other is not? You can't have it both ways dog.

 

 

Share this post


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

Christopher Steele is a foreign agent who assisted the Clinton campaign.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was about obtaining dirt that Natalia Veselnitskaya allegedly had but apperantly did not.

Christopher Steele was a former foreign agent that had been working as an independent contractor for hire.  Both the DNC and the RNC ended up hiring him. 

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF SHE HAD THE GOOD SHIT OR NOT.  IT IS THE INTENT THAT IS THE CRIMINAL ACT.  

There's another tree over there to bark up.  It's right over there....and there's a squirrel too!!!!

Learn some law and, while you're at it, learn how to spell, please.  Your trolling is becoming too evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I reads this and I think Mueller will easily prove this.  Is that the the dirt was offered by the Russians area was eagerly sought after by Trump. The Russians set the consideration lifting the Magninzky act (sanctions on oligarchs).  Trump agreed but warned it would take a little while.  Son after the emails started appearing.

so we have all the elements of criminal conspiracy a thing of value, consideration and an illegal act..  

Share this post


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

Christopher Steele is a foreign agent who assisted the Clinton campaign.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was about obtaining dirt that Natalia Veselnitskaya allegedly had but apperantly did not.

He’s widely reported to be a double agent for US intelligence.

Share this post


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

Christopher Steele was a former foreign agent that had been working as an independent contractor for hire.  Both the DNC and the RNC ended up hiring him. 

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF SHE HAD THE GOOD SHIT OR NOT.  IT IS THE INTENT THAT IS THE CRIMINAL ACT.  

There's another tree over there to bark up.  It's right over there....and there's a squirrel too!!!!

Learn some law and, while you're at it, learn how to spell, please.  Your trolling is becoming too evident.

It's the intent...really? Did the Clinton campaign not intend to obtain dirt on Trump via a foreign agent?

Share this post


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

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing

Says who?

Share this post


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

It's the intent...really? Did the Clinton campaign not intend to obtain dirt on Trump via a foreign agent?

Bonny and Clyde robbed banks so it’s okay. 

Share this post


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

Says who?

Those in attendance. Who says there was a deal?

Did the Trump campaign ever reveal any Russian supplied dirt? Has the Trump administration enforced the Magnitsky act?

Share this post


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

Those in attendance. 

Well, I guess that settles it then. Carry on.

Share this post


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

Obtaining dirt on a political opponent from the Russians is not.

Obtaining items of value from foreign nationals to support your election campaign is, in fact, illegal - https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

as they are, just this past week, looking to lessen the sanctions on Deripaska & Rusal, some might say you are bullshiting.

Share this post


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

Obtaining items of value from foreign nationals to support your election campaign is, in fact, illegal - https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

as they are, just this past week, looking to lessen the sanctions on Deripaska & Rusal, some might say you are bullshiting.

and that doesn't even reach the issue of whether the property itself has been illegally obtained.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected on hearing Trump admitted to collusion, the entertainment watching Dog try to spin his way out of conceding that is most amusing. 

Trump admitted to a campaign meeting arranged for the purpose of obtaining dirt from a foreign national on Hillary. As he has admitted to both intent and took a concrete step (the meeting) in order to carry out that intent - he has admitted to criminal conspiracy. That's a crime, Dog, even when the conspiracy isn't followed through to conclusion. Ichoate crime. Look it up and weep for all the hours you invested defending Trump from his own big mouth.

Don't take it too hard. You did a bang-up job trying to defend the guy. I applaud both your persistence and dedication. It's not your fault that Trump can't keep his mouth shut and let plausible deniability work it's way into the public mind. He just can't keep his mouth shut.

Share this post


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

Thanks, I'll take that under advisement. How about this one.

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing. 

What law has been broken?

Conspiracy to commit a felony.

 If an undercover federal agent tells you the first national bank of East Buttfuck is going to be unguarded, and have a large deposit of unmarked small denomination bills, and you show up at said bank with a handful of friends with guns, but don't actually take any cash, because it was all Monopoly money.... Are you still guilty of a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 this one is just as good....

you pick up a corner hooker and proposition her...you take her back to your hotel room and she laughs at your small dick, takes your money and  leaves...was a crime committed?

Share this post


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

Those in attendance. 

Well, I guess that settles it then. Carry on.

That @Dog would take the word of any one of these fuckers is just pathetic. 

They have clearly demonstrated they are without a shred of honesty, ethics, or morals. And, he believes them. 

Sad. Bigly sad. 

Share this post


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

Thanks, I'll take that under advisement. How about this one.

A  presidential campaign is told that a Russian individual has dirt on their opponent and wants to meet. The meeting is held to see "if it's what he said it was" but it turns out its not. Nothing of value is provided by either party. No dirt, no favors in return for dirt...nothing. 

What law has been broken?

Lying again

Trump promised the Russians that he would lift sanctions..... as he's tried to do, and he's almost certainly discussed during his meetings with the Russians that he has kept secret........

There may or may not be a law against "collusion" but there sure as hell are many laws against conspiracy, and YOU should be angry at the selling of favors to hostile foreign nations; and the subversion of US national interest..... of course, if the guilty person had a "D" after his name, you'd be outraged over it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of the Loony Tunes cartoons with the Roadrunner and (not so) Wile E. Coyote where the Roadrunner winds Wile E. up into a coyote tornado and he augers himself into the ground spinning so fast.  

We should look for Doggie about 17* feet under from the spin rotation he's developed over this one.

 

*  This is NOT a randomly selected number.

Share this post


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

Ok first, just quit with the "Hillary met with Russians!" line. I'd actually included a line in my post to rebut this before you whataboutid it, but I guess I overestimated your ability to stay on topic. Hillary hired a law firm who hired a group that looked into things. Only Trump Campaign Managers and high ranking folks met with Russians and directly discussed getting info on their opponent. Your false equivalence is, well, false.

And Trump confirmed in a tweet today that his campaign staff met with Russians at Trump Tower to discuss getting dirt on Hillary. So much for "allegedly." You are undercut by your leader, yet again. But don't feel too bad, seems he left his son twisting in the wind as well, since Donny Jr has already testified that the meeting was supposed to be about adoptions.

 

3 hours ago, Dog said:

Christopher Steele is a foreign agent who assisted the Clinton campaign.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was about obtaining dirt that Natalia Veselnitskaya allegedly had but apperantly did not.

Neither Clinton nor her campaign staff knew who Steele was until he was outed by the press. They hired Fusion GPS who hired Steele. So your false equivalence is getting tiresome. It's all laid out in the WaPo, so please cut this shit out.

2 hours ago, Dog said:

It's the intent...really? Did the Clinton campaign not intend to obtain dirt on Trump via a foreign agent?

NO. They hired a firm to gather info on Putin. The Clinton Campaign had no control over sources & methods, and ending up not even using what was developed.

@Dog You are flailing about like an idiot... why must we explain this again & again? Dogged loyalty, I suppose. 

Trump has now Tweeted that his senior campaign staff met with Russian agents in his building, while he was in the building, in order to gather information about Clinton. You cannot deny the problems with wishing or doggystyling this away. Nothing I've said is currently controversial, except in the mind of a Trump apologist.

You are a Trump apologist, and it's forever your brand. Soon you will need a sock, an alter ego to replace this mess, to help you forget this travesty.

Share this post


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

Neither Clinton nor her campaign staff knew who Steele was until he was outed by the press. They hired Fusion GPS who hired Steele. So your false equivalence is getting tiresome. It's all laid out in the WaPo, so please cut this shit out.

NO. They hired a firm to gather info on Putin. The Clinton Campaign had no control over sources & methods, and ending up not even using what was developed.    ...    ...    ...

 

Let's not forget that the Clinton campaign did not initiate the Steele dossier. They did NOT go looking to hire investigators to dig for dirt on The Donald (not that anyone would need to dig real hard).

That was done by Republicans, either looking for something to throw or for leverage over Trump if he won.

However, all that aside, we can never forget BENGHAZI MF'ers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, it seems like only last week (because it was) when @Dog was claiming the meeting was about adoptions. 

On 7/28/2018 at 5:39 AM, Dog said:

Read that with a discerning eye

The Trump campaign did not solicit (unlike the Clinton Campaign) and the Russian's did not offer any dirt on Hillary. It was Goldstone who emailed Don Jr. claiming that the Russians wanted to meet to discuss providing dirt. That was apparently a ruse to get a meeting to discuss adoptions. As far as we know no dirt was offered, nothing was offered in exchange for dirt, no dirt was provided, we don't even know that the dirt existed. Mueller wasn't even interested enough to interview the Russian lawyer.

There are enough fuzzy facts surrounding the issue that the anti-Trump media can whip up the TDS afflicted with meaningless shit like "important piece in understanding the campaign’s willingness" but this is going nowhere...nowhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting how people keep pointing out  just how much better at covering their tracks the professional politicians are.

that damn plausible deniability rears its ugly head again...

lol.....

Share this post


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

 

Neither Clinton nor her campaign staff knew who Steele was until he was outed by the press. They hired Fusion GPS who hired Steele. So your false equivalence is getting tiresome. It's all laid out in the WaPo, so please cut this shit out.

NO. They hired a firm to gather info on Putin. The Clinton Campaign had no control over sources & methods, and ending up not even using what was developed.

@Dog You are flailing about like an idiot... why must we explain this again & again? Dogged loyalty, I suppose. 

Trump has now Tweeted that his senior campaign staff met with Russian agents in his building, while he was in the building, in order to gather information about Clinton. You cannot deny the problems with wishing or doggystyling this away. Nothing I've said is currently controversial, except in the mind of a Trump apologist.

You are a Trump apologist, and it's forever your brand. Soon you will need a sock, an alter ego to replace this mess, to help you forget this travesty.

Dude, let me refresh your memory. The question you ask me was:

"Is it illegal for foreign agents to influence American elections by assisting Presidential Campaigns?"

It is not drawing any kind of equivalences to cite Christopher Steele's assistance to the Clinton campaign in response to that question.

Secondly, That the Trump campaign members attended the Trump Tower meeting in order to get dirt on Hillary is not news. Over a year ago Trump himself tweeted: "Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!" and he's right, most would. One's purpose in attending a meeting and what it actually transpires can be two different things.

The NYT publishes a new account of what has been known all along and you guys go full retard.

Share this post


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

Lying again

Trump promised the Russians that he would lift sanctions..... as he's tried to do, and he's almost certainly discussed during his meetings with the Russians that he has kept secret........

There may or may not be a law against "collusion" but there sure as hell are many laws against conspiracy, and YOU should be angry at the selling of favors to hostile foreign nations; and the subversion of US national interest..... of course, if the guilty person had a "D" after his name, you'd be outraged over it.

-DSK

The truth is that this administration has been more hostile towards Russia than the prior administration. The prior administration of "space" in return for "flexibility" fame...remember?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

That @Dog would take the word of any one of these fuckers is just pathetic. 

They have clearly demonstrated they are without a shred of honesty, ethics, or morals. And, he believes them. 

Sad. Bigly sad. 

Who else would know what transpired in the meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump changes the story he's been telling and both legal experts as well as posters here point out the impact of that. Dog spins as he always does. 

Share this post


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

Donald Trump changes the story he's been telling and both legal experts as well as posters here point out the impact of that. Dog spins as he always does. 

How did the story change? I for one have always understood the Trump campaign's purpose in attending the meeting was to obtain dirt on Hillary. As I pointed out above over a year ago Trump tweeted "Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime Dog posts some form of “I ...understood” it is a pretty good indication that one is about to read some full on bullshit. It is almost as certain as when he attributes a position to someone without posting a quote. 

Artiste. 

Share this post


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

Anytime Dog posts some form of “I ...understood” it is a pretty good indication that one is about to read some full on bullshit. It is almost as certain as when he attributes a position to someone without posting a quote. 

Artiste. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story changed because Trump stated in the past the meeting was about adoptions. Just because we knew it was otherwise isn't the same as him admitting otherwise. 

Share this post


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

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

Dog has a good answer for that. I’m not going to post it, and will post something different which catapults the propaganda a foot farther, so don’t bust me for misquoting because I didn’t quote him. 

Share this post


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

The story changed because Trump stated in the past the meeting was about adoptions. Just because we knew it was otherwise isn't the same as him admitting otherwise. 

They attended the meeting to get dirt as in "If it's what you say I love it" what transpired was a discussion of adoptions. The story has not changed, you've just been agitated.

Share this post


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

They attended the meeting to get dirt as in "If it's what you say I love it" what transpired was a discussion of adoptions. The story has not changed, you've just been agitated.

 

 

Trump has previously accused news stories stating that the email proved Don Jr's email proved his intent to obtain dirt on Hillary as being Fake News. He is now conceding they were correct in that assessment. That is a change. 

Also you cannot say what transpired in that meeting. You can only parrot what people have said about what transpired. People who have undeniably lied about the meeting on the record. That's not a change in the story however... Trump throwing you loyal supporters under the bus is new. 

Share this post


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

Yes, and this is the first time Trump has admitted that was an accurate assessment of that email. He has previously accused journalists making that claim of being Fake News. 

Now, time to spin those tweets as not being part of the story. And go... 

I don't know what you're talking about. Cite the tweets you're referring to.

Share this post


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

They attended the meeting to get dirt as in "If it's what you say I love it" what transpired was a discussion of adoptions. The story has not changed, you've just been agitated.

 

3BED1453-C7C4-4EEF-A5A2-CB733797740A.jpeg

Share this post


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

Trump and Co. thought they were getting dirt on Hillary. What they actually got was a Magnitsky pitch.

I don't think I've misrepresented that so no excuse needed.

DogLovesTrump.jpg.527d897c3617248ac5a8e626f32d6607.jpg

Share this post


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

I don't know what you're talking about. Cite the tweets you're referring to.

I don't believe you.

More importantly, your most recent post in the Drip, drip, drip thread shows there is no point providing links proving you wrong. You just deny what's written in black and white.

Not interested in playing fetch with you Dog. Content merely to use you as an example of how fact-free supporters act when Trump pulls the rug from under them. 

Share this post


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

I don't believe you.

More importantly, your most recent post in the Drip, drip, drip thread shows there is no point providing links proving you wrong. You just deny what's written in black and white.

Not interested in playing fetch with you Dog. Content merely to use you as an example of how fact-free supporters act when Trump pulls the rug from under them. 

Well then fuck off.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Well then fuck off.

Dogmedal.thumb.jpg.3c99f176ed08113d3551d32e8649f179.jpg

Share this post


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

My work here appears to be done.

What “work” is that.  Lie, lie ,lie deny, deny, deny - is not work.

Share this post


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

Well then fuck off.

No. 

Share this post


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

No. 

Well then don't fuck off and cite the tweets you are referring to.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Well then don't fuck off and cite the tweets you are referring to.

Or, I could simply hold off on that wait until you prove worth digging up the cites for. You still can't admit you made a mistake on Dershowitz' position regarding perjury; so your position on any proof regarding Trump is even more woefully predictable.

I don't go reproving the earth is round every time a flat-earther demands it, I'm not going to bother reproving Trump's a liar every time you MAGA red hats demand it either. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


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

Or, I could simply hold off on that wait until you prove worth digging up the cites for. You still can't admit you made a mistake on Dershowitz' position regarding perjury; so your position on any proof regarding Trump is even more woefully predictable.

I don't go reproving the earth is round every time a flat-earther demands it, I'm not going to bother reproving Trump's a liar every time you MAGA red hats demand it either. :rolleyes: 

That's good enough, you just hold off.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

That's good enough, you just hold off.

I will indeed hold off on that. I will, however, continue mocking those that cannot admit they're wrong when given a cite proving it beyond doubt and then get their panties twisted when people no longer think they're worth the effort.

You get back to me when you demonstrate you can handle being corrected like an adult. I'll hold off until you feel up to it. Won't be holding my breath though.

Share this post


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

I will indeed hold off on that. I will, however, continue mocking those that cannot admit they're wrong when given a cite proving it beyond doubt and then get their panties twisted when people no longer think they're worth the effort.

You get back to me when you demonstrate you can handle being corrected like an adult. I'll hold off until you feel up to it. Won't be holding my breath though.

Fine, you just hold off on that then. (As if you could do otherwise.)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Fine, you just hold off on that then. (As if you could do otherwise.)

Bla, bla, bla :lol:

Share this post


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

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

Lie... lie... lie...

Share this post


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

My work here appears to be done.

Becoming known as a no-honor liar? Yes.

Share this post


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

Becoming known as a no-honor liar? Yes.

His work was done long before this thread. He just likes to reaffirm the findings every now and then. ;) 

Share this post


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

Who else would know what transpired in the meeting?

That’s not my point, and I am not surprised to see you respond as if it was. 

They lie. Like no other Administration has. They lie about everything. They lie continually. They lie just for the practice. 

And you take their word for it. 

Share this post


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

The truth is that this administration has been more hostile towards Russia than the prior administration. The prior administration of "space" in return for "flexibility" fame...remember?

Really? That's why Congress had to enforce sanctions because Trump wouldn't? That's why Trump has had a series of meetings he dare not reveal the subject? That's why President Trump sided with Putin over his own intel agencies?

I remember Rush/Hannity and the other spew-mongers going on and on about President Obama making such a remark to Putin..... OTOH he tried to rally NATO against the invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea...... President Trump wants to normalize those, and either bring Russia into the G-7 or get the US out, and out of NATO as well.

Yeah that's really being tough on Russia, poor them.

The truth is that you're hypnotized by a pack of stupid lies.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites