-
@Frank
I stand corrected. The Hill is now looking at one aspect of the story.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trumpRecords seem to be missing
"There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring." -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.Groan. When I said "You're making stuff up" I meant in response to your statement "you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads" which is why I then said " I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.".
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
How do you think the NY Times got the emails?Obama? Clinton? FBI? CIA? Dunno mate but thats not the story here.
The story is the Trump administration repeatedly denied any meetings with Russia and now we know they have not only lied, they have also sought to engage who they thought were Russian representatives in order to use Russian sourced intel that could have been used to influence the election.If Trump Jr were a career politician, I'd expect he would step down. He still might, but who can tell with this administration.
That is the story to many people. Who decides what the story is?
I'm sure anytime the Trump administration is caught doing something they shouldnt be doing, Trump fans will want to go after who ever spilled the beans. It must be frustrating to be constantly having ones dirty laundry hung out for all to see.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
A question for all you Trumpsters on here in regard to the investigation about the possible Russian interference in the election. Simple question and hopefully simple answers.
Do you think that the allegations should have been investigated?
To what level? Your question is so vague as to be silly. And it is most definitely not simple.
For such a vague, silly question, you would have saved more time simply typing yes or no.
BTW I can't see how a yes or no answer to a question can really be vague?
Because it wasn't a yes no question. Do you think if you commit a crime you should go to jail? Yes or no?
Of course it is a yes or no question. You can then easily add your thoughts about rationale of innocence, conspiracy or what have you. Your comparison is completely invalid unless you tell me the crime, who committed it, under what circumstances etc and then if it something more than knocking on doors and running way, I would say "Yes, this crime needs to be investigated and if there is enough evidence them the person or persons should be charged".
But then you really know all this.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse. -
Trump Jr may not have done anything wrong, just like Trump Snr. However, there has been a consistent pattern of people involved with the campaign 'forgetting' about their contacts with Russian government representatives until they are outed.
At the very least that raises questions that require answers.The issue here is not whether the Trump campaign set out to collude with Russia in a nefarious manner it is whether Russia have used the opportunity provided by a very 'green' political group (the Trump campaign) to assert influence for their own benefit i.e. did Putin play Trump
The Russian way is not sledgehammer stuff. A description I read recently is 'they will tickle you to death with a feather over a very long time'.
The only way to find out just how they are influencing the US is by finding out how they are doing it. Trump Jnr is a very easy target. Give him some ideas to call his own, let him push the ideas with daddy.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. .. -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Frank
I stand corrected. The Hill is now looking at one aspect of the story.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trumpRecords seem to be missing
"There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring."I think there is a fair bit of grasping in that article, or at least the way it is written leads readers to jump to conclusions that aren't there.
From the article itself the initial entry was to act as a legal representative in a case. Although this type of waiver is not used regularly there is nothing improper about it. She couldn't get a normal visa so made application via another avenue which was granted. Anything else read into that is theory.
The bit you quote is out of context. The judge in the case wanted to take longer than expected originally so made a request for her visa to be extended while he did so. Nothing weird there and I would also think the outcome of the request isn't pertinent to the case or spoken about in court itself so wouldn't be in the court records.
As for the 'how did she get in in spring', that is unrelated to the court case entry. She could well have left the country and re-entered under another avenue such as an application from a Russian govt department on a diplomatic passport. If she was lobbying then that is a normal entry procedure.
To theorise that the Obama administration interfered with border control to allow her into the country to set up a meeting with Trump Jnr which would then be leaked well after an unexpected Trump victory to cast doubt on his legitimacy is pure tinfoil hat stuff. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
-
US politics is just terrific. This could be the smoking gun, or a complete setup or a big nothing burger. Currently my money is on the burger. Actually do any crazy betting agencies offer odds on this sort of thing? I can't be any worse than my rugby predictions!
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
US politics is just terrific. This could be the smoking gun, or a complete setup or a big nothing burger. Currently my money is on the burger. Actually do any crazy betting agencies offer odds on this sort of thing? I can't be any worse than my rugby predictions!
it is pretty damn hilarious alright, and gripping in a 'what the hell is going to happen next' way. it wouldn't even make a believable work of fiction.
regardless of what does happen next, or even what happened in the meeting - it's not nothing to get an email saying that the russian government is supporting your US election campaign and go 'woohoo bring it on'. nor is it nothing to hide all of this while an investigation is going on into russian election involvement and yell 'fake news'. -
How does the 'setup' theory go?
It makes no sense at all.For this to be a setup it would have to go
- during a period when the Dems are ahead in the polls and no one expects Trump to get near a win they arrange for a Russian lawyer to dangle carrot at Trump Jnr (not at Trump, or at a senior member of his campaign but at his son) .
- When he grabs at carrot they then don't offer him anything but keep the email exchange
- They never use that email chain to embarrass Trump during the campaign, nor in the immediate aftermath when they were crying about Russian involvement and the golden shower stuff comes out.
- They then leak it out six months after Trump has taken office
Yep that all makes a huge amount of sense
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
-
Does Mueller want to be fired or something?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Not as big as a difference between something being discussed and it not being discussed.
The more of this that comes out, the more it stinks as an anti Trump hit job.
Now it turns our Loretta Lynch personally ok'd this lawyers visa request, and the lawyer had had LOADS of interaction with Democrats.
And anything is possibly illegal. Kinda a pointless bar to set.
Lets get specific, which law do you think was broken? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Not as big as a difference between something being discussed and it not being discussed.
The more of this that comes out, the more it stinks as an anti Trump hit job.
Now it turns our Loretta Lynch personally ok'd this lawyers visa request, and the lawyer had had LOADS of interaction with Democrats.
And anything is possibly illegal. Kinda a pointless bar to set.
Lets get specific, which law do you think was broken?Anti Trump hit job? Explain the logic and the process in that.
As for the DoJ and the visa. There's a valid explanation for that and it was for an earlier time. As yet no one has worked out how the lawyer was in the country during the Trump meeting but it was well after the visa the DoJ approved.
Given that during the second time she was doing lobbying on behalf of her govt she most probably didn't require a visa and was travelling on diplomatic or official status claiming visa exemption. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
You have a valid point here. The potential for double standards for me makes comparisons worthless.
US Politics