Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: He was making that statement to one person. If a bunch of new evidence was was taken from Stones houses, that in itself will take time to process. 6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Chaos was the primary goal. There were some reasons for Putin to favor Trump over Clinton (her position in Syria for example), but Putin and the Clinton Machine (beyond HRC) have a long history of working together on various matters. Putin knew she was available for purchase at the right price. Trump was more of a wildcard, though I imagine SVR/GRU saw Trump as equally pliable on most matters. The amount of money/time spent on their information campaign during the election was equally spent on both sides, so even if there was an internal preference it wasn't strong enough to impact their roll out plan. (Just my take) Putin was scared of Clintons pro-democracy positions. He saw her laughing as Quaffy was being kicked to death. Putin has compromising material on Trump so has some leverage on him, nothing on Clinton. Undermining the international, pro-democracy order makes him and his fellow criminals feel safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Chaos was definitely first as he pry didn't think Trump would win, but it's probably he preferred Trump who he pry just saw as a wildcard like you said. I don't buy that he thought she could be bought. High ranking Russian officials were on record in that there was a personal vendetta Putin had against Hillary as he publicly blamed her and the state department for the Moscow protests in 2011 and 2012. Hillary also compared him to Hitler when he annexed Crimea. It's likely all the meddling was to cause chaos and send Hillary a message that they weren't to be messed with when she became president. So it goes like this? Russians/Putin seek to sow the seeds of chaos; Russians/Putin prefer Trump because of a personal vendetta against Clinton Inc, and thus the reality is Putin got Trump elected; Russians/Putin are hard-assed bastards who leave a trail of death and destruction in their wake in Crimea and amongst their own operatives abroad; But high ranking officials of the Russian/Putin government are the honest brokers of truth willing to put their lives at risk when they suggest the real strategy was Trump over Clinton? To be honest, I think we're all being played. The narrative that Clinton hurt his feelings with comments over the invasion of Crimea seems at odds with the fact that he surely would anticipate harsh criticism and little else in response to the move. So the Russian strongman invades a country but is hurt by the words of an aging female politician very unpopular in her own country? It goes hand in hand with the phony outrage over the expulsion of Russians as Obama left office, and the absurd Russkan colluison investigation that has suddenly morphed into an investigation into "Russian interfence". A "Russian interference" investigation would not require the hamstringing of a duly elected president for 50+% of his term. "Collusion" though....that's a word that has some meat to it. Sounds treasonous. We would want to leave no stone (Roger or otherwise) unturned to get to the bottom of that. In fact, we might even be willing to squeeze some stones to try and turn em if necessary. That leads to geared up morning raids covered by CNN (the official sponsor of doors being kicked in), and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline by Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson Original Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 BRENNAN BRAYS AGAIN Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan lied notoriously and repeatedly to Congress, yet he remains at large. He is not under indictment. The FBI has not sent a heavily armed battalion to raid his home and take him into custody in front of his friends at CNN. Is there any dispute about Brennan’s lies? I don’t think so. Looking around for a summary of Brennan’s lies, I find Victor Davis Hanson’s useful compilation in the June 2018 NR post “A reply to Ronald Radosh’s smear.” The compilation purports only to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Brennan could certainly have been included in Rep. Devin Nunes’s list of those who should be charged with lying to Congress along with Roger Stone if lying to Congress is now to be treated as a serious offense (see “They need to start with themselves”). Brennan seems to have reacted with the consciousness of guilt in his wild response to President Trump’s query “what about the lying done by Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lisa Page & lover, Baker and soooo many others?” Forget the whataboutism. It’s a good question. It makes us pause to ask yet again what is happening here. Twitchy collects some good responses on Twitter in “Mr. Projection!” Brennan’s braying represents a classic case of non-denial denial. What a lying partisan hack Obama put in charge of the CIA. And let me add, incidentally, that Brennan’s hackery probably does not even constitute his worst quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 5 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: I accept that as well. I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 My favorite part of the Stone indictment is that he lied to Congress, you know, the Republican House led investigation they tried so hard to use to whitewash the whole thing. That's great. These clowns tried so hard to get Hillary for nothing and failed. Tried so hard to protect Trump and his criminal buddies, and failed. Failures! F YOU!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 So if I have this right, we should soon seen Dems wearing T-shirts saying "My FBI Went After The President, But All I Got Was A Lousy Stone Arrest." Am I reading this right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Read the indictment of Stone, it says he was directed by a very senior member of the campaign Legs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Incorrect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Incorrect. The more correct term for Gator's post Lie. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694704-Stone-Indictment-012419.html Paragraph 5 Legs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694704-Stone-Indictment-012419.html Paragraph 5 Legs... Without context... Here's the context: * Nothing in paragraph 5 was illegal. * The rest of the document makes clear this came AFTER WikiLeaks already announced to the public they had dirt. * The rest of the document makes clear Stone had no contacts to WikiLeaks, nor did "Senior Trump Officials". No legs. That's the legs of the dossier being undercut and any collusion/conspiracy claim being shown to be devoid of merit or substance. IF Trump and Putin were working together, as you allege and the dossier alleges, then why would he need to reach out to Stone to have him search for a back channel communication to WikiLeaks or to find the data Trump himself (per the dossier) helped hack? Yeah. You're wrong. Very wrong. Paragraph five in context to the rest of the indictment and known facts proves the dossier's central claim is bs. As is any collusion or conspiracy legs. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Without context... Here's the context: * Nothing in paragraph 5 was illegal. * The rest of the document makes clear this came AFTER WikiLeaks already announced to the public they had dirt. * The rest of the document makes clear Stone had no contacts to WikiLeaks, nor did "Senior Trump Officials". No legs. That's the legs of the dossier being undercut and any collusion/conspiracy claim being shown to be devoid of merit or substance. IF Trump and Putin were working together, as you allege and the dossier alleges, then why would he need to reach out to Stone to have him search for a back channel communication to WikiLeaks or to find the data Trump himself (per the dossier) helped hack? Yeah. You're wrong. Very wrong. Paragraph five in context to the rest of the indictment and known facts proves the dossier's central claim is bs. As is any collusion or conspiracy legs. Wow, that's some spin! That's easy! So that they would have plausible deniability, EXACTLY what you are doing now! As to the nothing was illegal, ya, without context, for sure. But in context with everything else going on, stolen emails, Hotels wanting to be built, sanctions relief etc, it's collusion. Or more properly, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Can't wait until you are down to "Innocent until proven guilty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Wow, that's some spin! That's easy! So that they would have plausible deniability, EXACTLY what you are doing now! As to the nothing was illegal, ya, without context, for sure. But in context with everything else going on, stolen emails, Hotels wanting to be built, sanctions relief etc, it's collusion. Or more properly, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Can't wait until you are down to "Innocent until proven guilty" That's not spin. Them's the facts of the situation. Ignoring them, as you are in your response, is the spin. But you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 I can't wait for the next Democrat President to undergo this kind of useless timewasting investigative process. Oh yeah, the GOP is far meaning than the Dems could ever dream of being..... Should be around 2028 at this rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not spin. Them's the facts of the situation. Ignoring them, as you are in your response, is the spin. But you knew that. LOL................ It's as if Gator didn't notice that the entire media/dem party went from "Now WE Have Him" to "well, this is another brick" in about two seconds after the morning "raid" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 generally one should start with an actual crime for which people have been detained and charged. not when it's admitted as a total joke from the first second 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not spin. Them's the facts of the situation. Ignoring them, as you are in your response, is the spin. But you knew that. Facts? I showed you what facts we have. You just offered spin 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: LOL................ It's as if Gator didn't notice that the entire media/dem party went from "Now WE Have Him" to "well, this is another brick" in about two seconds after the morning "raid" No one is saying that, they are correctly pointing out how these indictments move closer to Trump, and getting Stone obviously does that. Context is important. Moscow hotel, lies, lies and more lies, meetings with Russians, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Facts? I showed you what facts we have. You just offered spin You did not show facts. You showed a desperation to believe anything that confirms your preformed conclusion. The facts show you're wrong. As they have from the start of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 an accusation is not proof a refutation is not a defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts