Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Salient point, for those not interested in reading or think The Federalist is propaganda:

 

Comey testified he read the 302 of Flynn's interview.  The 302 was written in August 2017.  Comey was fired in May of 2017.

 

For Comey to have read the summary of Flynn's interview, there'd have to be two different 302's filed.

 

Oops.

 

 

Or Comey lied.

Posted
Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Salient point, for those not interested in reading or think The Federalist is propaganda:

 

Comey testified he read the 302 of Flynn's interview.  The 302 was written in August 2017.  Comey was fired in May of 2017.

 

For Comey to have read the summary of Flynn's interview, there'd have to be two different 302's filed.

 

Oops.

 

 

 

And remember, despite Comey's 200+ "I don't remembers" last week, he has bragged about having a photographic memory. 

Posted

Fun watching the narrative change from it never happened to it didn't happen but if it did so what to it happened but it's no big deal.

 

The coming days will only bring more fun.

 

Right now we are only covering the sexual stuff except for Manafort. Soon, the really bad stuff comes out and the excuses will become funnier.

 

The weirdest thing will be watching who clings to the criminals the longest.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And remember, despite Comey's 200+ "I don't remembers" last week, he has bragged about having a photographic memory. 

I think he meant "pornographic" as he's actually pretty good at  %$#@ing the American people. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one here ever denied that happened. It's Trump - his history with women was well known for decades before the election. 

 

I never said anyone here denied it. I said Trump denied it and as evidence is revealed he keeps changing his stance.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

I never said anyone here denied it. I said Trump denied it and as evidence is revealed he keeps changing his stance.

"Evidence"?

 

In a criminal matter, a civil matter, or just something some guy said about something? 

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

I never said anyone here denied it. I said Trump denied it and as evidence is revealed he keeps changing his stance.

 

There were definitely people here who denied it. NJwhatever was one of them.

Posted
Just now, Kemp said:

I never said anyone here denied it. I said Trump denied it and as evidence is revealed he keeps changing his stance.

 

$850k paid out by 42 to keep Paula Jones and others quiet. 

$920k+ paid out by John Edwards to keep his affair quiet. 

 

Trump paid less, and paid others before he was ever running for office (proving a pattern of behavior that has nothing to do with influencing the election). None of his supporters believe he didn't have affairs or work to keep them quiet. None of what he did is a criminal violation of campaign finance law (any more than what Clinton or Edwards did - both who paid more). 

 

If this is what you're going to hang your hat on, it's pretty thin. 

 

This thread, and the main charge, has always been Russian collusion/conspiracy to change the outcome of the election. This does nothing to move that needle, nor do any of the indictments or findings from the SCO so far.

  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

$850k paid out by 42 to keep Paula Jones and others quiet. 

$920k+ paid out by John Edwards to keep his affair quiet. 

 

Trump paid less, and paid others before he was ever running for office (proving a pattern of behavior that has nothing to do with influencing the election). None of his supporters believe he didn't have affairs or work to keep them quiet. None of what he did is a criminal violation of campaign finance law (any more than what Clinton or Edwards did - both who paid more). 

 

If this is what you're going to hang your hat on, it's pretty thin. 

 

This thread, and the main charge, has always been Russian collusion/conspiracy to change the outcome of the election. This does nothing to move that needle, nor do any of the indictments or findings from the SCO so far.

On time and under budget.

  • Haha (+1) 4
Posted

My apologies if posted elsewhere already, but I thought the exit interview with Gowdy on Fox last night was enlightening.

 

On Comey @ 5:25: "...that's what it's like to interview an amnesiac with incredible hubris."  ?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Except 18 USC 1001 is insanely broad.  Doesn't matter if you're under oath or not, if you lie to a federal worker, you've violated that law.

 

That doesn't apply to me and my spouse, does it?

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

That doesn't apply to me and my spouse, does it?

 

I wonder if it extends to government contractors? If it does, Tom could put Gleeful Gator away for 20 lifetimes. OTOH, our lock keeper up there on the Chicago River is a legitimate federal worker so he may have the authority but not the ability.

Posted
38 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, what was this thread about?
 

 

 

It's been going on since the fall and nobody can confirm (except DR I'm sure..) what the case is about except that it is a special counsel matter.

×
×
  • Create New...