-
@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.
-
@Crucial
It is suspicious that Fusion and this lawyer are linked though. Not damning evidence of anything, but it needs to be properly investigated."A British businessman says he will next week testify on Capitol Hill that researchers who helped produce the infamous Steele dossier, previously worked at the direction of the Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr, and failed to declare they were doing so."
While they are at it, that sneaky little shit Christopher Steele needs to be subpoenaed.
And now, since he is refusing to voluntarily testify, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, need to be subpoenaed as well.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/341978-co-founder-of-firm-behind-trump-russia-dossier-wont-testify-before-senateGrassley won't be stopped until he has answers
-
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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.If this lawyer was such a danger that meeting with her was treason.... why was it ok to get the personal approval of Lynch for a visa? And all her meetings with Democrats? All just honky donky or treason as well?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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.If this lawyer was such a danger that meeting with her was treason.... why was it ok to get the personal approval of Lynch for a visa? And all her meetings with Democrats? All just honky fonky or treason as well?
You realise what the visa was for? The one that was short term.
We don't know what her entry clearance was when she met Jnr.She met Democrats because they were the govt and she was a lobbyist.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
It is suspicious that Fusion and this lawyer are linked though. Not damning evidence of anything, but it needs to be properly investigated."A British businessman says he will next week testify on Capitol Hill that researchers who helped produce the infamous Steele dossier, previously worked at the direction of the Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr, and failed to declare they were doing so."
While they are at it, that sneaky little shit Christopher Steele needs to be subpoenaed.
And now, since he is refusing to voluntarily testify, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, need to be subpoenaed as well.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/341978-co-founder-of-firm-behind-trump-russia-dossier-wont-testify-before-senateGrassley won't be stopped until he has answers
@Frank you still don't seem to grasp that the Russians aren't necessarily partisan. They just enjoy causing disruption and watching countries create their own internal fights.
There is good reason why the law prohibits getting involved with them during campaigns. They will just play you.
US Politics