Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I don't think he needs to subpoena it. I think he can just ask the IRS. In fact, I would guess that he already has it.

I'd be shocked if he didn't have it.  I figured he got it a while back when the Smartest Man in the GOP went on a multi-day meltdown and national conversation shifted to Mueller overstepping the boundaries of the investigation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

2 hours ago, saxdog said:

 Trump's a Russian borrower or an extortion target..

He most certainly is a Russian borrower.  No maybe about it.  Don Jr. is a primary source on that.  Per Don Jr.'s public statements he is financially completely dependent on Russian-based financing according to many sources after they bailed him out from his 7th bankruptcy and started washing money through his condominiums.  We have a White House "Resident" who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to Russian oligarchs.  

Is he an extortion target?  My guess is that the pee-pee tape and proof of the rape allegations are lurking in files somewhere in a large red brick building near the Volga River.  

In the meantime, Jared K has WH approval to keep on as Senior Advisor to the Resident and envoy to the Middle East without security clearance.

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

He most certainly is a Russian borrower.  No maybe about it.  Don Jr. is a primary source on that.  Per Don Jr.'s public statements he is financially completely dependent on Russian-based financing according to many sources after they bailed him out from his 7th bankruptcy and started washing money through his condominiums.  We have a White House "Resident" who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to Russian oligarchs.  

Is he an extortion target?  My guess is that the pee-pee tape and proof of the rape allegations are lurking in files somewhere in a large red brick building near the Volga River.  

In the meantime, Jared K has WH approval to keep on as Senior Advisor to the Resident and envoy to the Middle East without security clearance.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Security clearance, security schmerance..... We don't care about bezopasnost.... We already know all we need to know.... Spasibo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth Abramson: NBC reported Trump told friends he'd be in trouble if Manafort 'flipped'

 

(THREAD) Per NBC, Trump has told friends he'd be in trouble if Paul Manafort "flipped" on him—clearly signaling that Manafort can incriminate him and get him impeached. By that measure, today's events have brought Trump closer than ever to impeachment. Hope you'll read and share.

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

Does not answer the question posed. Try again, it's an either/or just like the one you posed to me.

 

The funny thing is, you actually think you're "winning" here by letting me point out your hypocrisy over, and over, and over. :lol: 

Well, I'm not the one who's politics prevents him from acknowledging what he thinks. How fucked up is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Security clearance, security schmerance..... We don't care about bezopasnost.... We already know all we need to know.... Spasibo.

Please re-boot. Hillary used her housekeeper as a clerk, handling sensitive material without security clearance. Not long after Benghazi, she narrowly escaped prison in that case.  :huh: Security matters.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the lawyer who just plead guilty. Manafort (and Gates) had commissioned the Skadden law firm to write the phony report justifying the jailing of Yulia Tymeshenk  (a political opponent of Viktor YanukovychManafort's Ukranian boss). The watchdog group Freedom House criticized the report's findings as "utterly baffling."

Yulia_Tymoshenko_2011.jpg

As an employee of Skadden in England, Van Der Zwann had done part of the work. Note:  VDZ's father-in-law is the rich figure suing Fusion GPS for Steel's sleuthing in Russia.

Van der Zwann once  got an email from Gates offering a quid pro quo from Manafort, to ease an $18M debt factor between Manafort and Oleg Derekpraksa. When questioned about it by the FBI,  VDZ lied about the content of certain texts…and rushed home to scrub the email from Gates.

 

  • Gates had interned with Roger Stone's firm, where he met Manafort. He joined Manafort in 2006. 
  • In the background, Manafort had channeled money through the Bank of Cyprus, whose board chairman is  Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross. Ross once appointed the former chairman of Deutschbank to the board of the Bank of Cyprus.
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

About the lawyer who just plead guilty. Manafort (and Gates) had commissioned the Skadden law firm to write the phony report justifying the jailing of Yulia Tymeshenk  (a political opponent of Viktor YanukovychManafort's Ukranian boss). The watchdog group Freedom House criticized the report's findings as "utterly baffling."

Yulia_Tymoshenko_2011.jpg

As an employee of Skadden in England, Van Der Zwann had done part of the work the work. Note:  VDZ's father-in-law is the rich figure suing Fusion GPS for Steel's sleuthing in Russia.

Van der Zwann once  got an email from Gates offering a quid pro quo from Manafort, to ease an $18M debt factor between Manafort and Oleg Derekpraksa. When questioned about it by the FBI,  VDZ lied about the content of certain texts…and rushed home to scrub the email from Gates.

 

  • Gates had interned with Roger Stone's firm, where he met Manafort. He joined Manafort in 2006. 
  • In the background, Manafort had channeled money through the Bank of Cyprus, whose board chairman is  Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross. Ross once appointed the former chairman of Deutschbank to the board of the Bank of Cyprus.

We need a distraction on Aisle 3.  Someone spilled some connections.  

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

We need a distraction on Aisle 3.  Someone spilled some connections.  

LeCarre wrote my favorite fiction. Now I can cob together such stuff from media links on PA.

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

In the meantime, Jared K has WH approval to keep on as Senior Advisor to the Resident and envoy to the Middle East without security clearance.

that would be really bad

when did kushners interim clearance get revoked?

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

Meanwhile, Donny Jr is off to India on a Trump Real Estate salespitch and US foreign policy speaking tour. 

No conflict of interest here, folks. Avert your eyes, move along please. 

But, don't you get it?

Obama wrote a book.  

So it's the same.

:)

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

Meanwhile, Donny Jr is off to India on a Trump Real Estate salespitch and US foreign policy speaking tour. 

No conflict of interest here, folks. Avert your eyes, move along please. 

What real estate deal is he working on?

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

He's pimping condos in India. You know, the ones where with every sale you got a chance to meet him? I guess you weren't paying attention the half dozen times it's been mentioned, I imagine you find the mingling of foreign policy speeches and bribery "refreshing"

I think family members of presidents should be allowed to conduct their businesses unimpeded. I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. That said, I would hope that he's not there representing the government of the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. "

Because we've never had a president in the past that continued to operate a business whose major asset was simple name recognition nor a president whose business overlapped foreign policy so directly.

And why was Jr. invited to speak at a conference on foreign policy where, while he might not be speaking "for the government' people will be hearing him as doing so?

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

I think family members of presidents should be allowed to conduct their businesses unimpeded. I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. That said, I would hope that he's not there representing the government of the United States.

Um.... He is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

" I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. "

Because we've never had a president in the past that continued to operate a business whose major asset was simple name recognition nor a president whose business overlapped foreign policy so directly.

And why was Jr. invited to speak at a conference on foreign policy where, while he might not be speaking "for the government' people will be hearing him as doing so?

What exactly, other than his last name, are his bonafides for addressing a conference on foreign policy ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

" I don't know of it ever being a problem in the past. "

Because we've never had a president in the past that continued to operate a business whose major asset was simple name recognition nor a president whose business overlapped foreign policy so directly.

And why was Jr. invited to speak at a conference on foreign policy where, while he might not be speaking "for the government' people will be hearing him as doing so?

There is no prohibition on family members of a president operating a business in which name recognition is important, nor should there be. There is there a prohibition on them expressing their opinions, nor should there be. The voters knew his circumstances when they elected him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The voters knew his circumstances when they elected him."

Right there in his released tax documents.

The emoluments clause was supposed to take care of the conflicts but T is the first to push the limits in this manner. Others believed that avoiding the appearance of conflict of interests was important, this president obviously does not.

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

What exactly, other than his last name, are his bonafides for addressing a conference on foreign policy ?

He's killed animals in shithole places like Africa.

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

Sealed. It seems Gates didn’t roll over yet, this should add a little incentive. 

Manafort is in some deep doo doo. 

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

Where's the corruption in  Don Jr conducting business in India and expressing his opinion at a conference?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/21/17031706/donald-trump-jr-india-conflict-of-interest

Trump Jr.’s visit to India not only suggests that the Trump Organization wants to lean into its investments in India — it almost seems designed to invite corrupt behavior.

Experts say Junior is selling access to himself — and by proxy, to the president of the US — in exchange for buying his products. He knows that if a member of the Indian elite wants a chance to advocate for a policy that they’d like to see enacted, buying Trump property is a simple way to do it.

But what makes it crystal clear that Trump Jr. wants to use his political ties to advance his business interests is the fact that he’s planning to deliver a speech on Indo-Pacific relations at an event in India on Friday. (It’s a serious affair — Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be speaking at the same summit.)

Unlike his sister Ivanka, Trump Jr. is not a formal member of the White House. He’s technically just a businessman running the Trump Organization on behalf of his father.

But by delivering a foreign policy speech, Trump Jr. is signaling to Indians that he’s in their country as a businessman and as a surrogate for the US government. If any wealthy Indians were on the fence about whether it was worth buying a condo just to talk to Trump Jr. about, say, trade policy, the fact that he’s delivering that speech should make it seem worthwhile. Trump Jr. is sending a clear signal that he wants to talk policy.

And since he is deliberately blurring the lines between his role as a businessman and as the son of the president, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that President Trump’s foreign policy could be for sale to the highest bidder.

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

Sealed. It seems Gates didn’t roll over yet, this should add a little incentive. 

Manafort is in some deep doo doo. 

I suspect that he has, hence the new legal team.  He be singing like a bird, as they turn up the heat on the Campaign Chairman.  Do you reckon that Manafort is going to be willing to go to jail for this crew?  I don't see a lot of loyalty from any of them to anyone else.  

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

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/21/17031706/donald-trump-jr-india-conflict-of-interest

Trump Jr.’s visit to India not only suggests that the Trump Organization wants to lean into its investments in India — it almost seems designed to invite corrupt behavior.

Experts say Junior is selling access to himself — and by proxy, to the president of the US — in exchange for buying his products. He knows that if a member of the Indian elite wants a chance to advocate for a policy that they’d like to see enacted, buying Trump property is a simple way to do it.

But what makes it crystal clear that Trump Jr. wants to use his political ties to advance his business interests is the fact that he’s planning to deliver a speech on Indo-Pacific relations at an event in India on Friday. (It’s a serious affair — Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be speaking at the same summit.)

Unlike his sister Ivanka, Trump Jr. is not a formal member of the White House. He’s technically just a businessman running the Trump Organization on behalf of his father.

But by delivering a foreign policy speech, Trump Jr. is signaling to Indians that he’s in their country as a businessman and as a surrogate for the US government. If any wealthy Indians were on the fence about whether it was worth buying a condo just to talk to Trump Jr. about, say, trade policy, the fact that he’s delivering that speech should make it seem worthwhile. Trump Jr. is sending a clear signal that he wants to talk policy.

And since he is deliberately blurring the lines between his role as a businessman and as the son of the president, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that President Trump’s foreign policy could be for sale to the highest bidder.

That some suspect corruption is not a good enough reason to expect a citizen to relinquish his rights.

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

That some suspect corruption is not a good enough reason to expect a citizen to relinquish his rights.

Doesn't matter - Jr suffers from the same sense of superiority his dad has that keeps digging the hole.  The rest of the ride will be most entertaining.

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

That some suspect corruption is not a good enough reason to expect a citizen to relinquish his rights.

When was it the right of first family members to represent the president’s businesses overseas while discussing foreign policy with foreign leaders?

He is selling real estate and presidential family access to those seeking to influence our foreign policy. This is corruption, whether or not you choose to call it “suspected”. 

Why do you hate the idea of our foreign representatives working for us, and not looking to only profit themselves? Because you are Trump’s lackey.

Sit dog, sit. Roll over. Beg.

Good doggy. Stupid doggy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's politics. One would think a populist politician's family would avoid even the appearance of corruption. Especially one with a "Drain the Swamp" plank. Technically Jr's little business trip may be okay. But the optics are terrible. Stinks. Yet there it is. Not hidden, yet denied.. And apparently perfectly acceptable to the faithful.

The Clinton family ware not good in this regard either. Obama was most careful. The Bushes likely just too dumb, but their Cabinet worked the corruption perks pretty hard.

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

When was it the right of first family members to represent the president’s businesses overseas while discussing foreign policy with foreign leaders?

He is selling real estate and presidential family access to those seeking to influence our foreign policy. This is corruption, whether or not you choose to call it “suspected”. 

Why do you hate the idea of our foreign representatives working for us, and not looking to only profit themselves? Because you are Trump’s lackey.

Sit dog, sit. Roll over. Beg.

Good doggy. Stupid doggy. 

He's not representing the United States and btw we have no idea what he is going to say and neither does the State Dept. He's a businessman advancing his business interests which is perfectly legitimate and expressing his own views at a conference, also legitimate.

Saying it's corruption doesn't make it so but I get that it's all you've got.

 

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

It's politics. One would think a populist politician's family would avoid even the appearance of corruption. Especially one with a "Drain the Swamp" plank. Technically Jr's little business trip may be okay. But the optics are terrible. Stinks. Yet there it is. Not hidden, yet denied.. And apparently perfectly acceptable to the faithful.

The Clinton family ware not good in this regard either. Obama was most careful. The Bushes likely just too dumb, but their Cabinet worked the corruption perks pretty hard.

I agree the optics are bad, he probably should have declined the speaking thing, bad judgment on his part.

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

I agree the optics are bad, he probably should have declined the speaking thing, bad judgment on his part.

Bad judgment is the family hallmark.

Some of that bad judgment seems to have resulted in business dealings with unsavory characters.

I bet we see charges as a result of their bad judgment.

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

Bad judgment is the family hallmark.

Some of that bad judgment seems to have resulted in business dealings with unsavory characters.

I bet we see charges as a result of their bad judgment.

 

Not to mention, 6 or 7 Bankruptcies, with scads of creditors defaulted on, putting some of the smaller ones out of business.

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

 

Not to mention, 6 or 7 Bankruptcies, with scads of creditors defaulted on, putting some of the smaller ones out of business.

Now, now.  We have heard from the Trump Defense Brigade how bankruptcies are practically required when doing business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s talking points on Russia take a turn for the desperate

Quote

 

President Trump has now offered a few different reactions to the indictments of 13 Russian nationals on Friday. And all of them rely upon (a) a willful misreading of the facts, and/or (b) transposing two things that sound the same but aren't.

Even for a president with a passing regard for facts, his arguments of late seem pretty cynical.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/20/trumps-talking-points-on-russia-take-a-turn-for-the-desperate/?utm_term=.50331938c441

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

 

Subscription required, can someone please copy and paste?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein suggested Trump campaign officials didn't collude

Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

 

 

The White House and the Republican National Committee have also repeated this false argument, which suggests it's a talking point. They've used fuzzy language, but they've all suggested that Rosenstein's announcement at least somewhat takes collusion off the table. The White House put it this way: "...President Donald J. Trump has been fully briefed on this matter and is glad to see the Special Counsel’s investigation further indicates — that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Except that's not what the indictments indicate. Rosenstein said, “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,” but he was speaking specifically about “this indictment.” And there are all kinds of reasons to believe that, even if Trump officials were in trouble, the indictment Friday wouldn't allude to it in any way, shape or form.

2) Rosenstein suggested that Russia didn't change the 2016 election results.

“Charges Deal Don A Big Win,” written by Michael Goodwin of the @nypost, succinctly states that “the Russians had no impact on the election results.” There was no Collusion with the Trump Campaign. “She lost the old-fashioned way, by being a terrible candidate. Case closed.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

 

 

General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems. Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 18, 2018

 

 

This was also a clear White House/Republican National Committee talking point Friday, but it makes less sense than the above. Rosenstein said clearly that there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

But as Philip Bump notes, we would never expect there to be such an allegation — first, because it's immaterial to the indictments, and second, because it's totally unknowable. Even the intelligence community has said its analysis of Russian interference wouldn't be able or attempt to answer this question. And there is a huge difference between declining to make an allegation and disproving something.

The Trump administration has been called out on this particular talking point repeatedly; it should (and probably does) know better.

3) Russia started the effort in 2014 — before Trump began his campaign.

Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 16, 2018

 

 

Funny how the Fake News Media doesn’t want to say that the Russian group was formed in 2014, long before my run for President. Maybe they knew I was going to run even though I didn’t know!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

 

 

The third thing Trump has seized upon is the timeline — specifically, that the Russian troll farm described in the indictment began in 2014. This was before he even started his presidential campaign, and Trump seems to think this suggests that the effort wasn't about him.

In response, plenty of people have pointed out that Trump trademarked “Make America Great Again” in 2012 or otherwise dipped his toe into the 2016 race earlier than his official July 2015 launch date. But that completely misses the point. The point is not that Russia wanted to help Trump so it created this effort; the point is that it decided he was the best vessel for its existing effort to interfere in the election and destabilize the United States. Whether the chicken or egg came first doesn't change anything, really.

4) Democrats used to say you couldn't rig elections.

“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, there’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that it will happen this time, and so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and make his case to get votes.” .....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

 

 

....The President Obama quote just before election. That’s because he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win and he didn’t want to “rock the boat.” When I easily won the Electoral College, the whole game changed and the Russian excuse became the narrative of the Dems.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

 

 

Trump on Tuesday morning pointed to an October 2016 quote from President Barack Obama: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.” The argument: Democrats said the vote couldn't be rigged, but now (when I win) they say it was!

Except nobody is saying the 2016 vote was “rigged.” Trump often transposes interfering in an election with rigging it. The former involves trying to influence the election, while the latter involves a fraudulent effort to change vote totals — either through hacking or illegal votes. When Obama said those words, he was responding specifically to Trump's very specific argument that voter fraud might cost him the election.

Russia is very much accused of interfering, but even the intelligence community has said “the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.” In other words: This has never really been about rigging.

 

5) The FBI was so busy with collusion that it did not act before the Parkland shooting.

Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 18, 2018

 

The above tweet is from Saturday. There is no question that the FBI's handling of red flags about alleged Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz is justifiably under the microscope. But the attempt to suggest it was an issue of manpower and emphasis is really a stretch.

The first problem with Trump's tweet is that issues such as counterintelligence are handled by a different part of the bureau. The second is that the FBI hasn't been in charge of the Russia investigation since the special counsel was appointed in May. The most serious red flags about Cruz came in recent weeks, long after the FBI was no longer on the case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

Well, I'm not the one who's politics prevents him from acknowledging what he thinks. How fucked up is that?

Yes, I'm certain everybody understands from your posts which of us is prevented from stating the obvious because of their politics. And it is indeed pretty fucked up.

Now back to the question you refuse to answer:

On 20/02/2018 at 8:17 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 20/02/2018 at 8:14 AM, Dog said:

Do you believe Trump is a Russian agent or do you support him?

Have I accused you of supporting Trump because you won't label him a Russian agent or are you being a disingenuous, dishonest prick because you got called out?

Like yours, it is an either/or. We can get to your new question about whether I've somehow changed my mind about Trump being a Russian agent when you sack up and answer the query posed.

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

He's not representing the United States and btw we have no idea what he is going to say and neither does the State Dept. He's a businessman advancing his business interests which is perfectly legitimate and expressing his own views at a conference, also legitimate.

Saying it's corruption doesn't make it so but I get that it's all you've got.

 

When the business you represent is branding buildings, golf courses and resorts with the family name, and that name is also synonymous with the office of the US president, then this business and this son is representing the US to foreign people and governments. People will give him money to influence our president, or in hopes of the same. In a word, bribes. It’s how the world works without enforcement of ethical boundaries.

Because Trump has erected a sham of a firewall between him and his business, because he maintains constant contact with his sons who currently run his business, he has opened himself and America up to blurred lines between his business and our nation’s best interests. 

This latest example of poor ethics where Trump so obviously puts his financial interests above our country’s security shows how he is doing his best to profit off being president. And people like you are currently setting precedent which will make naked profiteering the American tradition, not self sacrifice or transparency. 

 You are a myopic partisan, Dog, blind to the harm you would cause America. The greatest threat to America is our president: he moonlights as a tweeting president, and by day he seeks to avoid Mueller’s investigation while selling our nation’s prestige for profit.  

But your slavish loyalty to a national security threat makes me wonder about your true allegiance. It isn’t to America, that’s for sure. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

When the business you represent is branding buildings, golf courses and resorts with the family name, and that name is also synonymous with the office of the US president, then this business and this son is representing the US to foreign people and governments. People will give him money to influence our president, or in hopes of the same. In a word, bribes. It’s how the world works without enforcement of ethical boundaries.

Because Trump has erected a sham of a firewall between him and his business, because he maintains constant contact with his sons who currently run his business, he has opened himself and America up to blurred lines between his business and our nation’s best interests. 

This latest example of poor ethics where Trump so obviously puts his financial interests above our country’s security shows how he is doing his best to profit off being president. And people like you are currently setting precedent which will make naked profiteering the American tradition, not self sacrifice or transparency. 

 You are a myopic partisan, Dog, blind to the harm you would cause America. The greatest threat to America is our president: he moonlights as a tweeting president, and by day he seeks to avoid Mueller’s investigation while selling our nation’s prestige for profit.  

But your slavish loyalty to a national security threat makes me wonder about your true allegiance. It isn’t to America, that’s for sure. 

You wonder about my allegiance because I don't condemn a private citizen for exercising the freedoms the country guarantees... fuck off.

Get back to me with some actual corruption and we'll talk about that.

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

You wonder about my allegiance because I don't condemn a private citizen for exercising the freedoms the country guarantees... fuck off.

No. Everyone already knows where your allegiances lie, due to the vast body of comments you've made on the forum. Pretending it's simply one misrepresented disagreement with you is very much the Doggy style bullshit that's been named after said body of work.

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

No. Everyone already knows where your allegiances lie, due to the vast body of comments you've made on the forum. Pretending it's simply one misrepresented disagreement with you is very much the Doggy style bullshit that's been named after said body of work.

Bla...bla...bla

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

Bla...bla...bla

On 20/02/2018 at 8:17 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 20/02/2018 at 8:14 AM, Dog said:

Do you believe Trump is a Russian agent or do you support him?

Have I accused you of supporting Trump because you won't label him a Russian agent or are you being a disingenuous, dishonest prick because you got called out?

Still waiting, Dog. You set the standard, time to sack up and meet it :lol: 

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

He's not representing the United States and btw we have no idea what he is going to say and neither does the State Dept. He's a businessman advancing his business interests which is perfectly legitimate and expressing his own views at a conference, also legitimate.

Saying it's corruption doesn't make it so but I get that it's all you've got.

 

So we don't  know what he's going to say in india but we know what bill said on the tarmac?

Dog, you're  becoming a bigger laughing  stock. 

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

"actual corruption" only involves Democrats with you Dog. Fuck off.

If Malia Obama were selling a meeting with her with every condo you'd be having a coronary you lying duplicitous piece of shit.

You give dog  too much credit.  No way he knows what 'duplicitous' means.

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

You wonder about my allegiance because I don't condemn a private citizen for exercising the freedoms the country guarantees... fuck off.

Get back to me with some actual corruption and we'll talk about that.

Fuck off yourself, Dog. You are, at the absolute minimum, accepting a breach of basic ethical standards based on partisan preferences.

this IS corruption, you just choose to avoid an honest appraisal of the situation 

 By arguing America should be ok with it, you would sacrifice the best of our traditions for your short term gain  

Why should any true American give a shit about your opinions, if you require some “tied up with a bow, video with sound and a signed confession” standard of evidence? Ethical boundaries are enacted to PREVENT THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Get back to me with some actual corruption and we'll talk about that.

Get me the transcript of Bill's chat with Lynch and we'll talk about that. Or, you know, you could just admit that you have a double standard as to what constitutes corruption. Happy either way.

 

Oh, and by the way, you seemed to miss this.

On 20/02/2018 at 8:17 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 20/02/2018 at 8:14 AM, Dog said:

Do you believe Trump is a Russian agent or do you support him?

Have I accused you of supporting Trump because you won't label him a Russian agent or are you being a disingenuous, dishonest prick because you got called out?

 

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

I suspect that he has, hence the new legal team.  He be singing like a bird, as they turn up the heat on the Campaign Chairman.  Do you reckon that Manafort is going to be willing to go to jail for this crew?  I don't see a lot of loyalty from any of them to anyone else.  

If Gates flipped, I would expect indictments, not charges. In Gate’s case, perhaps the it’s a plea in the sealed envelope, not an indictment?

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

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374869-mueller-investigating-whether-manafort-promised-banker-a-trump

Mueller investigating whether Manafort dangled White House job to get loans

There are only two people (besides Melonia) whom Dogald Trump seems afraid to criticize publicly: Vladi and Mueller. Those are the people he honestly fears, the people he knows have something on him? 

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

Fuck off yourself, Dog. You are, at the absolute minimum, accepting a breach of basic ethical standards based on partisan preferences.

this IS corruption, you just choose to avoid an honest appraisal of the situation 

 By arguing America should be ok with it, you would sacrifice the best of our traditions for your short term gain  

Why should any true American give a shit about your opinions, if you require some “tied up with a bow, video with sound and a signed confession” standard of evidence? Ethical boundaries are enacted to PREVENT THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.  

I would  suggest that defending the rights of a private citizen to engage in the freedoms this country stands for is hardly sacrificing its best traditions. Family members of the president should not be expected to relinquish those rights in a country founded on government by the people and the citizen politician.

You can argue bad judgment and the potential for corruption and I might agree. You however argue actual corruption even before the event occurs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:

There are only two people (besides Melonia) whom Dogald Trump seems afraid to criticize publicly: Vladi and Mueller. Those are the people he honestly fears, the people he knows have something on him? 

Getting Manafort to flip is going to be pretty tough.  Compared to what the Russian mob can do to him, the US justice system is not very threatening.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

So dog, what was said on the tarmac?

I don't know exactly, but I do know that Lynch subsequently decreed that the Hillary investigation would be referred to as a "matter". That the script was flipped such that the prosecutors deferred to the investigator on the question of prosecution. That a memo was written months before the conclusion of the investigation matter exonerating Hillary for acts for which you and I would never have been given a pass. And yet I have refrained from calling it corruption suggesting only that it be investigated. Clearly not the same standard you apply to Don Jr.

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

I don't know exactly, but I do know that Lynch subsequently decreed that the Hillary investigation would be referred to as a "matter". That the script was flipped such that the prosecutors deferred to the investigator on the question of prosecution. That a memo was written months before the conclusion of the investigation matter exonerating Hillary for acts for which you and I would never have been given a pass. And yet I have refrained from calling it corruption suggesting only that it be investigated. Clearly not the same standard you apply to Don Jr.

Do you think that Russian whores urinated on Donald Trump?  

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

Do you think that Russian whores urinated on Donald Trump?  

I don't think so, but I really don't know or care. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of my business.

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

I don't know exactly, but I do know that Lynch subsequently decreed that the Hillary investigation would be referred to as a "matter". That the script was flipped such that the prosecutors deferred to the investigator on the question of prosecution. That a memo was written months before the conclusion of the investigation matter exonerating Hillary for acts for which you and I would never have been given a pass. And yet I have refrained from calling it corruption suggesting only that it be investigated. Clearly not the same standard you apply to Don Jr.

Why is it such a major concern of yours that the label used switched from "investigation" to "matter".

I ask because you continue to mention it, as if it is the most egregious of transgressions.

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

Why is it such a major concern of yours that the label used switched from "investigation" to "matter".

I ask because you continue to mention it, as if it is the most egregious of transgressions.

If it's not an investigation then candidate Hillary was not under investigation while running for president. Given what we know about how it was conducted it was probably accurate to call it something other than an investigation. 

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

If it's not an investigation then candidate Hillary was not under investigation while running for president. Given what we know about how it was conducted it was probably accurate to call it something other than an investigation. 

The Christian Science Monitor link (somewhere) supports you, pretty much. They point out "inconsistancies" within the accounts of Hillary's staff were noted by the FBI, but unlike with Mueller, were not prosecuted.

Yes. But Mueller's guilty pleas are part of a larger picture,  investigating additional, underlying crimes, such as spying, collusion, or money laundering. Hillary had no monkey business to be pursued by Comey.

The CSM article also claimed that Lynch probably knew the FBI outcome of the Hillary report before she "appeared" to step aside for the weekend...as she allegedly continued to pull strings. The article seemed to conclude the entire Mueller probe was suspect.

 

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

Do you think that Russian whores urinated on Donald Trump?

What a question. Pics or it didn't happen. Seriously, why haven't they leaked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do you think that Russian whores urinated on Donald Trump?

What a question. Pics or it didn't happen. Seriously, why haven't they leaked?

Interesting phrase there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 2:08 PM, SloopJonB said:

To the best of my knowledge I've never been in a tall building with the 13th floor marked as such. They always go 12 - 14.

I worked in a commercial building for 15 years in the 13th floor.

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

Because of trickle-down economics.

I hope the investigation goes full stream ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites