Drip Drip Drip


Super Anarchist
A handy timeline,  it sure appears that team trump have danced around the collusion maypole, jus saying.....

Courtesy of AXIOS


President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Wednesday night that he "never said there was no collusion" between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, and that "if the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago."

Why it matters: Trump and his team have been moving the goalposts on questions of collusion with Russia — whether it happened, when it happened, whether it's even illegal, who did it — ever since the allegations first emerged.

Show less


  • Nov. 11, 2016Hope Hicks denies a report that Russian experts were in contact with the Trump campaign: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”
  • Dec. 18, 2016Kellyanne Conway denies that there was any contact between the campaign and Russians: "Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.”
  • Feb. 16, 2017: Trump says during a press conference, "I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does."
  • March 2017In an interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump Jr. says, “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. ... But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment.”
  • July 8, 2017: Trump Jr. responds to a Times report about the now-infamous June Trump Tower meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up."
  • July 9, 2017Trump Jr. issues a second statement, after it's revealed that he set up the meeting after being promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
  • Dec. 28, 2017Trump says in an interview with the Times, “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”
  • July 29, 2018Giuliani says on Fox News, "When I say the Trump campaign, I mean the upper levels of the Trump campaign. I have no reason to believe anybody else [colluded]. The only ones I checked with obviously are the top four or five people.”
  • May 16, 2018: Giuliani tells Fox News' Laura Ingraham that looking for political "dirt" is a common practice, but that the important thing is that the campaign didn't use it: “Even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it."
  • July 30, 2018: Giuliani doubles down on collusion not being a crime: "I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding with Russians. Hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack! He didn't pay for the hacking."
  • Dec. 16, 2018Giuliani addresses reports that Michael Cohen has given special counsel Robert Mueller "valuable information" about possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia: "I have no idea what they're talking about. I know that collusion is not a crime. It was over with by the time of the election.”
  • Jan. 16, 2019: Giuliani says on CNN, "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign…If the collusion happened, it happened a long time ago.”

Sure sounds like rudy is laying the groundwork for a fresh salvo of incoming.

Last edited by a moderator:

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
Eastern NC
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
Dude!  Things are about to get strange.
It's already been a long strange trip.

The question I have is, what has been pulled in to show specifically what President Trump and his family have communicated, and when....... texts, emails, post-it notes? Without a pretty good amount of pretty hard evidence from several sources, this will blow right over the heads of the Trumpettes and ~70% of Republicans.

They just don't give a shit. Trump's their boy, they knew he was a rotten asshole when they picked him (indeed IMHO that was a big part of his appeal, for many of them). For them to stand and just nod calmly as he goes down, there will need to be serious hard evidence. Even then, expect 20+% to continue to support him.




Super Anarchist
Dude!  Things are about to get strange.
Cohen taped everything, it will be a dream answered, if he has Donnie on tape asking him to lie.

BuzzFeed News

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. 

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. "Make it happen," the sources said Trump told Cohen. 

And even as Trump told the public he had no business deals with Russia, the sources said Trump and his children, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr., received regular, detailed updates about the real estate development from Cohen, whom they put in charge of the project. 

Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying about the deal in testimony and in a two-page statement to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Special counsel Robert Mueller noted that Cohen's false claim that the project ended in January 2016 was an attempt to "minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1" -- widely understood to be Trump -- "in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations." 

Read more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation 



Super Anarchist
5 years in the can.


To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.

To secure a conviction for subornation of perjury, the perjury sought must actually have been committed. United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 376 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 124 (1995). The underlying perjury must be proved under the standards required by the applicable perjury statute. Thus, if section 1621 applies to the underlying perjury, the two witness rule must be met, but not if section 1623 applies to the underlying perjury. United States v. Gross, 511 F.2d 910, 915 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 (1975). Physical coercion need not be proven in prosecutions for subornation of perjury. United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 320 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 796 (1996). Conspiracy to suborn perjury may be prosecuted irrespective of whether perjury has been committed. The two witness rule does not apply in conspiracy prosecutions. Solicitation of perjured testimony also may be prosecuted as obstruction of justice irrespective of whether the perjured testimony took place. United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1395 (11th Cir. 1984).

Because the crime of subornation of perjury is distinct from that of perjury, the suborner and perjurer are not accomplices; however, a person who causes a false document to be introduced through an innocent witness can be held liable as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir. 1993).

The attorney's ethical obligations when confronted by a client who wishes to testify falsely are discussed at length in Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986). See also Rules 1-102, 4-101 and 7-109 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 1, 4, and 7, and Ethical Consideration 7-26.

[cited in JM 9-69.200]



Super Anarchist
I wonder if Donnies enjoying playing in the political sandpit?  Its a big step up from the development sandpit.

There's different rules an things........



Super Anarchist
De Nile
Donnie’s crying about his new AG nominee’s kind talk about Bob at the confirm hearings. Oops.

Last edited by a moderator:


Super Anarchist
Just think,  Weisselberg,  Trumps CFO got given immunity back in August along with National Enquirers, Pecker, with Cohen just finished singing it would appear that Mueller has had the keys to Donnie's kingdom for a while now.

He likely has a shitload more hits to come and remember it ain't over till the fat one sings,( I know its meant to be the fat lady but a fat donnie will work).

Is the likely charge Subornation of Perjury or Obstruction of Justice? as I note it could be charged either way .

I get the feeling the shit will begin to stack up pretty shortly,  possibly why rudy has been on a baffle them with bullshit tour and I think the bullshit will be thick for the foreseeable future..

Impeachment or a Resignation -with lots of conditions attached? Surely the R's will look a little less favorably at their Golden Boy with a few felony convictions pending or maybe not.

If Donnies anything like Manafort he'll be in breach before too long.he just can't help himself and Rudy would be a dumbass to put Donnie on a stand.



Super Anarchist
Does anyone use that term?  It is quite odd to be referred to as a "Dude".  It reflects upon what follows. I use sir a lot.  I use Mr. if I don't know him well enough to use his first name.  But "dude", that's not in my bailiwick.  I have been in many places in big cities, rich and poor, parts of the world developed and not.  But "dude".  To each his own.  I will address your other craziness momentarily.  Unlike you, I'd like to be accurate.
Oh, you like to be accurate...Well then, when you do address my "craziness"  hopefully you will be more mindful of that than you were in your last effort.



Super Anarchist
Excellent interview on CNN with the lead reporter I missed some of it.  Apparently, there’s an issue with one of the co reporters (source?) which he addressed candidly.  Said he had multiple confirmations with other sources (some law enforcement) and collaborating evidence and he is 100% confident it’s true.

Obviously, it’s an impeachable offense but we all know Trumps done much, much,worse.  I think the dems need to hold off wait for Some other bombs to drop and then drive a stake through his heart.

Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts