Deranged Rhino Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 1 minute ago, TH3 said: Dude, You are seriously gripping....you do realize that the orange turd is circling the bowl and about to be flushed right? There's no evidence to support this position other than the same hysterical talking points which have been proven to be incorrect, misleading, or flat out lies. There's no evidence of Russian collusion or conspiracy. That's where this started, that's what was promised by many in this thread and here we are two years in with the same amount of evidence as when we started: zero. 2 minutes ago, TH3 said: his enterprises have been financed by the Russians and this has affected our countries foreign policy, he has used the office for financial gain...none of this is of dispute. It is in dispute. By me and the evidence itself. There's no evidence to support the claims above. None. If you have some, I'll happily read and discuss. 3 minutes ago, TH3 said: He will go down and you and your buds here will spend years spinning conspiracy theories and blaming everything but the obvious...he is criminally and intellectually not suited for the office and is going down under that weight. Keep thinking this is about Trump and you'll keep being wrong about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You don't provide a differing viewpoint. You provide nothing to this board but drive by insults that end up making you look more foolish than your intended target. Kemp has yet to show a willingness to honestly converse. I haven't given up hope but his last effort of moving the goalposts while ignoring the substance of the conversation wasn't reassuring. When one of your responses to Kemp is that the campaign finance violations are not criminal ....you are wrong and its waste of time to read further... You think this board is about differing viewpoints? Hahaha...is a comedy that I get a kick out of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Just now, TH3 said: When one of your responses to Kemp is that the campaign finance violations are not criminal ....you are wrong and its waste of time to read further... So the truth makes you stop reading? No wonder you are so woefully misinformed. Campaign finance violations are fineable offenses. No one goes to jail over them. Quote FECA violations that either: (1) do not present knowing and willful violations, or (2) involve sums below the statutory minimums for criminal prosecution, are handled non-criminally by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) under the statute’s civil enforcement provisions. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a) (that's what the alleged campaign violation is in this case... (1) ... just like Edwards) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: So the truth makes you stop reading? No wonder you are so woefully misinformed. Campaign finance violations are fineable offenses. No one goes to jail over them. (that's what the alleged campaign violation is in this case... (1) ... just like Edwards) And in the Edwards case the funds were paid from campaign funds. In Trump's case the campaign didn't finance the payment which further dilutes the case against Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 23 minutes ago, TH3 said: When one of your responses to Kemp is that the campaign finance violations are not criminal ....you are wrong and its waste of time to read further... You think this board is about differing viewpoints? Hahaha...is a comedy that I get a kick out of Campaign finance violations are a civil offense punishable by fines, not a criminal offense; much in the same way speeding or jay walking are not criminal violations. Further it's not even clear that the President even committed such a violation. The case is shaky, at best. Finally, such violations are common. The prior Administration was assessed a fine for one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 58 minutes ago, TH3 said: Absolutely! Why contaminate your day with differing viewpoints?, Hmmm are you also "kemp"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 I REMEMBER WHEN SUGGESTING THAT MEANT YOU WERE A RUSSIAN PUPPET: Judge suggests Justice, State colluded to protect Hillary Clinton in email scandal. A federal judge has raised speculation that Hillary Rodham Clinton and her State Department “colluded” to keep her missing emails secret from the public and courts, an escalation of scrutiny into Obama-era scandal. Senior District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in a new memo also called the Clinton email affair “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” In it, he demanded that State and Justice work with Judicial Watch, which has sued in the case, to develop an evidence seeking schedule into whether Clinton sought to avoid the federal Freedom of Information Act by using a private email system in her New York home. . . . Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION: … his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case? *** At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court. Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote: The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted] The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.” Citing an email (uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit) that Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked: Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry? **** Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic redtape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.” . Indeed. 97Posted at 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, B-Man said: I REMEMBER WHEN SUGGESTING THAT MEANT YOU WERE A RUSSIAN PUPPET: Judge suggests Justice, State colluded to protect Hillary Clinton in email scandal. 97Posted at 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: So you are ok with a president hiding/lying about massive financial interests he has with a murderous dictator? And then defending said dictator and disparaging our intelligence agencies? Of course not. That's why we didn't vote for her. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 The Mueller Bombshell That Wasn’t https://www.dailywire.com/news/39176/mueller-bombshell-wasnt-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 5 hours ago, TH3 said: Dude, You are seriously gripping....you do realize that the orange turd is circling the bowl and about to be flushed right? Not because of HC or the Deep State....because he is a POS shister con man...he lies all day everyday, he bangs hookers and porn stars while his wife is pregnant, his enterprises have been financed by the Russians and this has affected our countries foreign policy, he has used the office for financial gain...none of this is of dispute. He will go down and you and your buds here will spend years spinning conspiracy theories and blaming everything but the obvious...he is criminally and intellectually not suited for the office and is going down under that weight. There is a lot of rage in this little manifesto of yours, and lost in your tirade is the fact that virtually everything you wrote is in dispute. Have a cup of tea, it will help to calm you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 MUELLER’S THEORY: TRUMP DEFRAUDED VOTERS “Prosecutors’ Narrative Is Clear: Trump Defrauded Voters.” So declares the first part of the headline of a New York Times article by Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos. The rest of the headline asks “But What Does It Mean?” Good question. It may mean that the prosecutors haven’t found a crime, but are still pissed off that Trump won the election. I find odd the notion that Trump defrauded voters. No candidate in my lifetime ever painted a clearer, more vivid picture of himself for voters. For better or for worse, we knew what we were getting (and no, it wasn’t a Putin stooge). Indeed, it’s difficult for me to treat Mueller’s theory seriously. I hope readers will forgive the (at times) flippant nature of what follows. How does Mueller’s team say Trump defrauded voters? In two ways, apparently. First, he paid money to hide the fact that he had sex with a porn star. The Times explains: The prosecutors made clear in their memo that they viewed efforts by Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to squelch the stories as nothing less than a perversion of a democratic election — and by extension they effectively accused the president of defrauding voters, questioning the legitimacy of his victory. When did it become the role of prosecutors to question the legitimacy of an electoral victory? This must be a recent development. The legitimacy of Barack Obama’s election went unchallenged by the law even though he wrote a fake autobiography and, before his second win, secretly (he thought) promised Russia to be more flexible once those reactionary American voters reelected him. In 1992, Bill Clinton tasked a team of Arkansas operatives to cover-up his sexual indiscretions. John Kennedy conspired with the media to keep his quiet. Franklin Roosevelt covered up, as best he could, the fact that he couldn’t walk. Kennedy too concealed his medical problems. The second way Trump “defrauded” voters, according to the Times’ version of Mueller’s theory, was by “continuing to do business with Russia deep into his presidential campaign even as Russian agents made efforts to influence him.” The Times goes on to note that Trump’s operation was pursuing a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow until June 2016, whereas the campaign’s line was that the deal had collapsed in January. Who were the “victims” of this “fraud”? Not the general electorate. There has been no indication that Trump was still trying to business with Russia when it voted in November 2016. And by then, surely it was a matter of indifference which month the attempts ended. Republican primary voters? It’s heart-warming that Mueller’s team of lefty Democrats is so solicitous of our interests. Yet, I doubt many Republicans feel aggrieved. Few were worrying about whether Trump was trying to make a business deal with Russia. I was one of the few, but Mueller need not go after Trump on my behalf. Assuming that Trump, as opposed to Cohen, said his business dealings in Russia ceased in January, this misrepresentation ranks far down in the annals of false campaign statements. The Times acknowledges that its rendition of Mueller’s theory gives rise to a case for impeachment, not for indicting the president. But for House Democrats to assert such a theory — “we wuz robbed” — in an impeachment proceeding would only confirm that the whole business is simply an effort to relitigate an election the Democrats lost. The Democrats might be better advised to reject the “we wuz robbed” refrain in favor of “wait til next year.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: How does Mueller’s team say Trump defrauded voters? In two ways, apparently. First, he paid money to hide the fact that he had sex with a porn star. The Times explains: The prosecutors made clear in their memo that they viewed efforts by Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to squelch the stories as nothing less than a perversion of a democratic election — and by extension they effectively accused the president of defrauding voters, questioning the legitimacy of his victory. When did it become the role of prosecutors to question the legitimacy of an electoral victory? This must be a recent development. The legitimacy of Barack Obama’s election went unchallenged by the law even though he wrote a fake autobiography and, before his second win, secretly (he thought) promised Russia to be more flexible once those reactionary American voters reelected him. What? Cohen's guilty of...acting like an editor choosing which stories do and do not get reported? When does the editorial staff of the New York Times get prosecuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Campaign finance violations are fineable offenses. No one goes to jail over them. (that's what the alleged campaign violation is in this case... (1) ... just like Edwards) Dinesh D'Souza's soap on a rope begs to differ. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Quote Except for that little part where the US Attorney’s Office says that you directed and coordinated with Cohen to commit two felonies. Other than that, totally scot-free. https://t.co/YXmgY9KmXi — George Conway (@gtconway3d) December 8, 2018 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 30 minutes ago, Tiberius said: ? What were the two felonies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Doc said: What were the two felonies? Look them up! But really, they do not matter. Cohen has already talked to Mueller about the real issue which is the ties to Russia, conspiracy against the United States and a compromised President. Biggest scandal in American history. I mean, if its true. Hey, innocent until...you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Look them up! Tough to do when there aren't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Tough to do when there aren't any. Yes! Its all a lie! HA HA HA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Look them up! But really, they do not matter. Cohen has already talked to Mueller about the real issue which is the ties to Russia, conspiracy against the United States and a compromised President. Biggest scandal in American history. I mean, if its true. Hey, innocent until...you know. Hey Gleeful Gator, have you figured out that Russian real estate deal yet? Do you have a location, price or any details of the due diligence yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts