Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know one conservative who agrees Manafort would throw Trump under the bus in a nanosecond, but he isn't ratting because there's nothing to rat about. He contends this prosecution shows just how vindictive Mueller and the Deep State are.
Today's testimony showed Manafort' s money links to the Kremlin. To say that Mueller is vindictive in prosecuting Manafort for obvious bank fraud and massive tax evasion is just vindictive is absurd. Whether or not Manafort has info on Trump does not take away from the fact that he clearly should be prosecuted for it.
 
Knew about it?! Hell, he was probably on the speakerphone!

I think he was probably the recipient of the unidentified phone calls that Donnie Jr. made before and after the Russia "adoption" meeting.

Of course he knew about it. Junior wouldn't fart without Daddy's permission.
 
I know one conservative who agrees Manafort would throw Trump under the bus in a nanosecond, but he isn't ratting because there's nothing to rat about. He contends this prosecution shows just how vindictive Mueller and the Deep State are.

Remember that little Donnie made two calls to a blocked number. While the GOP refused to find out who's block number he called, I'd bet that Mueller ABSOLUTELY knows who that call was to. And I'd bet 100K it was to Don Sr.

Edited

Ninja'd by Stacy.
 
Ingraham:

Now it's the "Hillary and the Dirty Dossier". :rolleyes:

And "the liberals are going crazy now that Trump admitted he was looking for dirt on Hillary. Is that even illegal?"

She seems to be confusing a foreign national with foreign government.

She has experts on telling us it wasn't illegal to seek dirt on Clinton.

She's citing Jonathan Turley. I shall have to go see what the facts are.
 
Last edited:
OK, here we go. Maybe this is what Ingraham is distorting:

August 5, 2018 Trump’s Tweets Are Cathartic and Costly But Not Crimes

Or maybe this Tweet: "In the end,,theTrump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.

I had respect for Turley, but this is not helping his reputation.

The Hill: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too


Think about it. In one case Clinton paid an agency to do research. PAID, got that, it wasn't a foreign government and it wasn't a donation from Steele to the Clinton campaign.

It is so easy for these propagandists to cherry pick the similarities and ignore the core differences. And of course they put rebuttal pundits on Fox News that bungle the rebuttal.
 
Questions for the pro-Trumpers participating in this thread:
1. If given the opportunity would you get on a Manafort jury and vote not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt if you believed it would help protect Trump?
2. Do you see the prosecution of Manafort as part of a deep state effort to undermine Trump?
3. Do you think Manafort is being unfairly prosecuted?
4. Why do you think Manafort isn't flipping?

For some definition of "pro-Trumper"...

1. No. That's stupid.

2. Yes.

3. Yes and no. Yes because (2) is a yes. No because regardless of the origins of the case, he's still getting due process.

4. I've got nothing but speculation. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Was she also asked what he has been smoking?

I mean seriously, the Bushes and the Clintons in cahoots? Really?
Why not? As wealthy members of the political class, they have more in common with each other than with the people they're supposed to represent.

Brazil is still in throes of a scandal where the major political parties were at each other's throats in public, while conspiring in private to siphon off the country's oil profits for their mutual benefit.

There are few things more plausible to me than the proposition that career politicians put on a show of conflict while working together to maintain the status quo that keeps them both employed.
 
Why not? As wealthy members of the political class, they have more in common with each other than with the people they're supposed to represent.

Brazil is still in throes of a scandal where the major political parties were at each other's throats in public, while conspiring in private to siphon off the country's oil profits for their mutual benefit.

There are few things more plausible to me than the proposition that career politicians put on a show of conflict while working together to maintain the status quo that keeps them both employed.

Really? A "deep state" that no evidence supports exists outside the minds of conspiracy theorists?

I quoted a study in one of these ISF threads earlier that found that conservatives with a good knowledge of politics were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than liberals with good knowledge of politics. Deep State! Fake news! Obama Muslim! Birth Certificate! Benghazi! Vince Foster! Whitewater! Pizzagate!
 
Was she also asked what he has been smoking?

I mean seriously, the Bushes and the Clintons in cahoots? Really?

Why not? As wealthy members of the political class, they have more in common with each other than with the people they're supposed to represent.

Brazil is still in throes of a scandal where the major political parties were at each other's throats in public, while conspiring in private to siphon off the country's oil profits for their mutual benefit.

There are few things more plausible to me than the proposition that career politicians put on a show of conflict while working together to maintain the status quo that keeps them both employed.

I can believe almost anything about humanity. Especially corruption. But the idea of a deep state conspiracy run by Bushs/Clintons/Obama is absurd. I also see nothing wrong with politicians on both sides of the aisle being civil and liking each other.

If there was a deep state conspiracy,, there wouldn't have been 3 years of nonsense investigations into Ben Ghazzi and a silly email server. Comey would never have announced that there were more emails right before the election.

Trump is promoting this narrative simply because he is guilty guilty, guilty, guilty.

The joke really is, that both Don Jr. And Don Sr, keep admitting their crimes. There is more proof of Trump crimes than there ever was on Nixon. The narrative that Sr. never knew about the the Trump Tower meeting within an hour of it or before is simply not credible. There is Cohen's statement, there is Trump's tease speech where he announces that he's going to make a major speech on the Clintons and his lies to cover up the meeting should be persuasive to an intellectually honest individual.
 
Why not? As wealthy members of the political class, they have more in common with each other than with the people they're supposed to represent.

Brazil is still in throes of a scandal where the major political parties were at each other's throats in public, while conspiring in private to siphon off the country's oil profits for their mutual benefit.

There are few things more plausible to me than the proposition that career politicians put on a show of conflict while working together to maintain the status quo that keeps them both employed.

When I hear about the deep state, I think about the term populism and how populists have contempt for expertise and the "elites". I think of Rrichard Hofstadter's essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and also Tom Nichol's book "The Death of Expertise"
Oh, and this article on the "The Shallow State"

The shallow state, on the other hand, is unsettling because not only are the signs of it ever more visible but because its influence is clearly growing. It is made scarier still because it not only actively eschews experience, knowledge, relationships, insight, craft, special skills, tradition, and shared values but because it celebrates its ignorance of and disdain for those things. Donald Trump, champion and avatar of the shallow state, has won power because his supporters are threatened by what they don’t understand, and what they don’t understand is almost everything. Indeed, from evolution to data about our economy to the science of vaccines to the threats we face in the world, they reject vast subjects rooted in fact in order to have reality conform to their worldviews. They don’t dig for truth; they skim the media for anything that makes them feel better about themselves. To many of them, knowledge is not a useful tool but a cunning barrier elites have created to keep power from the average man and woman. The same is true for experience, skills, and know-how. These things require time and work and study and often challenge our systems of belief. Truth is hard; shallowness is easy.
 
Why not? As wealthy members of the political class, they have more in common with each other than with the people they're supposed to represent.

Brazil is still in throes of a scandal where the major political parties were at each other's throats in public, while conspiring in private to siphon off the country's oil profits for their mutual benefit.

There are few things more plausible to me than the proposition that career politicians put on a show of conflict while working together to maintain the status quo that keeps them both employed.

So that happened in Brazil. Does that mean that politicians in every other country on the planet are doing the exact same thing?

Evidence, please.
 
Last edited:
Today's testimony showed Manafort' s money links to the Kremlin. To say that Mueller is vindictive in prosecuting Manafort for obvious bank fraud and massive tax evasion is just vindictive is absurd. Whether or not Manafort has info on Trump does not take away from the fact that he clearly should be prosecuted for it.
In fact isn't this exactly the kind of establishment behaviour what I would assume a typical Trump supporter would want to stamp out.

I thought the whole deal with Trump was that they didn't trust the established status-quo, and they didn't trust the usual career politicians, they wanted a man to "tell it as is is" etc etc. Reminds me of Animal Farm, Trump and his pals take over and immediately start screwing over the people. (defrauding the government of large amounts of Tax dollars is screwing over the people IMO)
 
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt worked together toward a common goal when the freedom of the entire world was at stake (yes, I know, that's despite the fact that they kept things from each other, and were pretty much politically opposed on a lot of things), but it doesn't mean they became lovey dovey best buddies once the threat was removed. I could no more believe that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt would cooperate to control the world than I would the Clintons, the Bushes and the Obamas would cooperate to run an alleged US "deep state". Anyone who believes this could be true is suffering from serious case of Deep Stupid.
 
Last edited:
Ingraham:

Now it's the "Hillary and the Dirty Dossier". :rolleyes:

And "the liberals are going crazy now that Trump admitted he was looking for dirt on Hillary. Is that even illegal?"

She seems to be confusing a foreign national with foreign government.

She has experts on telling us it wasn't illegal to seek dirt on Clinton.

She's citing Jonathan Turley. I shall have to go see what the facts are.

How do the shills keep a straight face while peddling this fertilizer.

Giuliani: Collusion's not a crime.
Trump: Rudy's real smart, so yeah, there was a meeting to get dirt from the Russians which is perfectly normal and not a crime. Collusion's not a crime. So bite me!"
Ingraham, Hannity, Pirro, et al.... (doing the weasels in Who Framed Roger Rabbit): Yeah! You tell 'em, boss. Squawk! Collusion's not a crime. Collusion's not a crime. Who's a pretty bird?

Thirty-six hours later:
Twitter-Dumb hits the phonewaves: There was collusion allright. Hillary colluded. Adam Schiff colluded.
The stooges: Huh? Didn't we just claim collusion's not a crime and getting dirty laundry on political opponents was all cool and stuff? Oh, never mind. "Lock 'em up! Lock 'em up! Lethal injections, I say!! Who's a pretty bird? Who's a pretty bird?"
 
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt worked together toward a common goal when the freedom of the entire world was at stake (yes, I know, that's despite the fact that they kept things from each other, and were pretty much politically opposed on a lot of things), but it doesn't mean they became lovey dovey best buddies once the threat was removed. I could no more believe that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt would cooperate to control the world than I would the Clintons, the Bushes and the Obamas would cooperate to run an alleged US "deep state". Anyone who believes this could be true is suffering from serious case of Deep Stupid.

The Deep Hurr Durr. :D
 
Last edited:
Today's testimony showed Manafort' s money links to the Kremlin. To say that Mueller is vindictive in prosecuting Manafort for obvious bank fraud and massive tax evasion is just vindictive is absurd. Whether or not Manafort has info on Trump does not take away from the fact that he clearly should be prosecuted for it.

The argument there is "What does tax evasion have to do with Russian meddling in the election?" They're unrelated, so Mueller wants blood. I remember reading someone online say Mueller is only going after Manafort in this way because he's frustrated that there's nothing on Trump, and this kind of political prosecution is supposed to send a message to others to just tell the special prosecutor what he wants to hear.

Remember that little Donnie made two calls to a blocked number. While the GOP refused to find out who's block number he called, I'd bet that Mueller ABSOLUTELY knows who that call was to. And I'd bet 100K it was to Don Sr.

I still don't understand how they could not know that number. Shouldn't it be easy to find out who he called? Of course, Trump's brilliant legal defense might argue that Mueller can't prove who answered the phone, then conceding, yeah, he talked to Daddy, but about adoptions -- and then about dirt on Hillary -- and then about how great collusion is because it's not illegal.

People by now are anesthetized to the Tower meeting. Trump is so cartoonishly villainous that there's very little intrigue. It's like the SNL sketch where Michael Che plays Lester Holt and asks Alec Baldwin, "Why did you fire James Comey?" "For that Russia thing." Bewildered, Che looks around, "Wait... did I just get him? Is it over?"
 
How do the shills keep a straight face while peddling this fertilizer.

Giuliani: Collusion's not a crime.
Trump: Rudy's real smart, so yeah, there was a meeting to get dirt from the Russians which is perfectly normal and not a crime. Collusion's not a crime. So bite me!"
Ingraham, Hannity, Pirro, et al.... (doing the weasels in Who Framed Roger Rabbit): Yeah! You tell 'em, boss. Squawk! Collusion's not a crime. Collusion's not a crime. Who's a pretty bird?

Thirty-six hours later:
Twitter-Dumb hits the phonewaves: There was collusion allright. Hillary colluded. Adam Schiff colluded.
The stooges: Huh? Didn't we just claim collusion's not a crime and getting dirty laundry on political opponents was all cool and stuff? Oh, never mind. "Lock 'em up! Lock 'em up! Lethal injections, I say!! Who's a pretty bird? Who's a pretty bird?"
I would really love for CNN and/or MSNBC to address the lies on Fox. I want to hear the debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom