Tiberius Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Sean Hannity said this was a coup, too! Coincidence? Fox News's FBI coup conspiracy theory, explained - Vox https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16790592/fox-news-coup Dec 18, 2017 - Fox News host and growing media conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity in June said a “softcoup is underway” in America aiming to overturn Trump's election. “Sinister forces quickly aligning, in what is becoming now, in my mind, a clear and present danger.” As the Washington Post's Samantha Schmidt ...
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 Trump's lawyers advising the big mouth idiot not to talk to Mueller. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-lawyers-special-counsel-interview.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
/dev/null Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump's lawyers advising the big mouth idiot not to talk to Mueller. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-lawyers-special-counsel-interview.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Any lawyer would advise their client to limit conversations with investigators
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, /dev/null said: Any lawyer would advise their client to limit conversations with investigators It's pretty obvious that Mueller has nothing on Trump and his only hope is to catch him in an inconsistency with what they may have on tape. This farce should end now.
Cinga Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 49 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It's pretty obvious that Mueller has nothing on Trump and his only hope is to catch him in an inconsistency with what they may have on tape. This farce should end now. Well, I dunno.... the conversation could go something like this I suspect: Mueller : You want this investigation to end don't you Donald Trump: Why yes, I think it should Mueller: So are you ordering me to end it? Trump: I didn't say that Mueller: but that is what you implied isn't it? Trump: Don't put words in my mouth Mueller: I just did... and will charge you with obstruction for ordering me to end this investigation 2
Nanker Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 55 minutes ago, Cinga said: Well, I dunno.... the conversation could go something like this I suspect: Mueller : You want this investigation to end don't you Donald Trump: Why yes, I think it should Mueller: So are you ordering me to end it? Trump: I didn't say that Mueller: but that is what you implied isn't it? Trump: Don't put words in my mouth Mueller: I just did... and will charge you with obstruction for ordering me to end this investigation That is about the size of it. I'm now looking back on Comey's role as Thomas a Becket when he claimed he felt threatened by President Trump when he told him he wanted "loyalty". Well, Comey was disloyal to his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think THAT's what caused him heartburn.
boyst Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 On 2/5/2018 at 2:03 AM, Deranged Rhino said: Per the bolded: fair enough. You're boring.
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 4 hours ago, /dev/null said: Any lawyer would advise their client to limit conversations with investigators Especially if they have something to hide. He would have to answer questions to things that Flynn, Popadopolous and Gates have already testified to and that is a minefield he would never be able to tip toe through.
Koko78 Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 32 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Especially if they have something to hide. He would have to answer questions to things that Flynn, Popadopolous and Gates have already testified to and that is a minefield he would never be able to tip toe through. You mean what you think people who were charged with lying testified to? You're really bad at this. 1
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: You mean what you think people who were charged with lying testified to? You're really bad at this. I don't have to rely on ad hominem attacks to make a point. Yes, charged, and in two cases pleaded guilty already. If you are going with they can't be relied on now to be truthful, fine. But if they testify in conjunction with supplying other evidence that backs them up, it makes the case so much stronger. If Trump says something contrary to what they said, chances are that can be checked. Let's remember, the president has zero credibility outside of his group of Fox news watching sub-normal intelligence supporters. That's important.
Koko78 Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I don't have to rely on ad hominem attacks to make a point. Yes, charged, and in two cases pleaded guilty already. If you are going with they can't be relied on now to be truthful, fine. But if they testify in conjunction with supplying other evidence that backs them up, it makes the case so much stronger. If Trump says something contrary to what they said, chances are that can be checked. Let's remember, the president has zero credibility outside of his group of Fox news watching sub-normal intelligence supporters. That's important. I liked how Trump lied about the FBI under Obama wiretapping his campaign and transition! Oh wait, they were. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 Where is Steele? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.html
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: I liked how Trump lied about the FBI under Obama wiretapping his campaign and transition! Oh wait, they were. They were? Ok, when was that? What are you talking about?
Koko78 Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: They were? Ok, when was that? What are you talking about? Yeah, you're really bad at this. 2
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Yeah, you're really bad at this. You made a claim and can't back it up.
Koko78 Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You made a claim and can't back it up. Ok, so you're now denying that the FBI got a FISA warrant to listen in on Page and anyone he had contact with? You really are trying to take your title of 'full gatorman' away from Schiff, aren't you? 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: What FISA warrant? According to Tibs, there was no such thing.
row_33 Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 the Dems have never bugged or overdone an investigation.....
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: Ok, so you're now denying that the FBI got a FISA warrant to listen in on Page and anyone he had contact with? You really are trying to take your title of 'full gatorman' away from Schiff, aren't you? Page resigned from the campaign before he was the subject of a FISA warrant
Deranged Rhino Posted February 6, 2018 Posted February 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Ok, so you're now denying that the FBI got a FISA warrant to listen in on Page and anyone he had contact with? You really are trying to take your title of 'full gatorman' away from Schiff, aren't you? What FISA warrant? According to Tibs, there was no such thing. Yeah, he's been spinning so much he's dizzy and vomiting onto his keyboard more nonsense than usual. 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Page resigned from the campaign before he was the subject of a FISA warrant (ugh... this is a mistake but): Yes. He did. So then why did the FBI/DOJ want to get Page under a FISA Title I warrant after he left the campaign?
Recommended Posts