Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlitos said:
I'm glad to see this story surface. Basically, the campaign raised an insane amount of money and most likely did not spend it all on the inauguration. The inauguration fund-raising chairs were a who's who of financial shady dealers, including tax cheats, money launderers, and Rick Gates (but I repeat myself).

A full $25 million out of $100M went to the event-planning company which didn't exist until a month before the inauguration and which was started by a friend of Melania Trump. Where they spent it - nobody knows.


Here's a ProPublica / Trump Inc. podcast from March that details a lot of it.
Click to expand...
If Obama's inauguration fund isn't already on the WhatAbout dropdown-list it soon will be.
 
The Big Dog said:
Strzok interviewed Hillary too!

She had nine lawyers in there with her, including a couple that were given immunity, and the interview was taken AFTER they had already started writing the statement that grossly negligent careless Hillary was being let off the hook, and after their boss met with Hillary's husband on the tarmac.

Oh, but the leftists are really concerned about political bias in investigations, tho! Totes concerned.

We'll stop it, says Peter to his **** buddy.

/chuckling tho that our correspondent made up some totally hypothetical and claimed i would be jumping for joy in a thread where there is actual evidence of grossly biased investigations dream thread.
Click to expand...

If a Trump-supporting investigator were looking into possible criminal activity by Hillary Clinton, would you call for that investigator's recusal?
 
The Big Dog said:
Strzok interviewed Hillary too!

She had nine lawyers in there with her, including a couple that were given immunity, and the interview was taken AFTER they had already started writing the statement that grossly negligent careless Hillary was being let off the hook, and after their boss met with Hillary's husband on the tarmac.

Oh, but the leftists are really concerned about political bias in investigations, tho! Totes concerned.

We'll stop it, says Peter to his **** buddy.

/chuckling tho that our correspondent made up some totally hypothetical and claimed i would be jumping for joy in a thread where there is actual evidence of grossly biased investigations dream thread.
Click to expand...

I wonder just how much of that you pulled from your ass? My guess is that post is a lot of half truths and exaggerations.. I notice you offered no citations whatsoever. And what was that about, an email server? Who the hell cares? Did she lie to Strzok? Lie like Papadopoulos, or Manafort or Cohen or Don Jr or Eric Kushner or dozens others including Trump about Russian contacts To FBI agents and Congress?

Why is everyone associated with Trump lying about Russia?
 
I Am The Scum said:
If a Trump-supporting investigator were looking into possible criminal activity by Hillary Clinton, would you call for that investigator's recusal?
Click to expand...

You are asking to deal with a hypothetical mote while the real life planks have been slapping us silly?

Ok. Hell yes i would and i will go further and call for that persons jailing.

Great confab!
 
CapelDodger said:
If Obama's inauguration fund isn't already on the WhatAbout dropdown-list it soon will be.
Click to expand...

Greg Jenkins led former President George W. Bush’s second inaugural committee in 2005, which raised and spent $42 million (that would be $53 million in today’s dollars). Asked about how Trump’s team managed to spend so much more, Jenkins said, “It’s inexplicable to me. I literally don’t know.”

“They had a third of the staff and a quarter of the events and they raise at least twice as much as we did,” Jenkins said. “So there’s the obvious question: Where did it go? I don’t know.”
Click to expand...

Things that make you go 'hmmm'.
 
The Big Dog said:
Mueller's team gave General Flynn a great deal because Mueller's team were embarrassed by the way he was treated - the FBI said he didn’t lie and Mueller's team overrode the FBI. Mueller's team want to scare everybody into making up stories that are not true by catching them in the smallest of misstatements. Sad!......

Sad, indeed Mr. president, sad indeed...
Click to expand...

Facts not in evidence.

The FBI didn't say that he didn't lie, that is your ball of wax, and that of your Dear Leader..

Now here are some actual, verifiable FACTS (you know, those things you and 45 are allergic to, and shy away from)

Republicans on the House intelligence committee issued a report from a private briefing with Comey. In that report, they said that the agents who interviewed Flynn “discerned no physical indications of deception” and saw “nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

Just because you cannot tell if someone was lying does not mean they aren't; they just might be a very good liar.

In any case, what the HCI Republicans reported is not actually what Comey said, which was "that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true.” “They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.”

The rest of us posting here are not stupid. We see exactly what you try to do (and we see you doing it repeatedly) - taking statements out of context and then making up stuff about them.... in other words, lying about them.
 
The Big Dog said:
Strzok interviewed Hillary too!

She had nine lawyers in there with her, including a couple that were given immunity, and the interview was taken AFTER they had already started writing the statement that grossly negligent careless Hillary was being let off the hook, and after their boss met with Hillary's husband on the tarmac.

Oh, but the leftists are really concerned about political bias in investigations, tho! Totes concerned.

We'll stop it, says Peter to his **** buddy.

/chuckling tho that our correspondent made up some totally hypothetical and claimed i would be jumping for joy in a thread where there is actual evidence of grossly biased investigations dream thread.
Click to expand...
Hillary had nine lawyers? She gets the popehat tick of approval.
 
acbytesla said:
I wonder just how much of that you pulled from your ass? My guess is that post is a lot of half truths and exaggerations.. I notice you offered no citations whatsoever. And what was that about, an email server? Who the hell cares? Did she lie to Strzok? Lie like Papadopoulos, or Manafort or Cohen or Don Jr or Eric Kushner or dozens others including Trump about Russian contacts To FBI agents and Congress?

Why is everyone associated with Trump lying about Russia?
Click to expand...

It's amazing how all of Trump's staggering amount of lying and criminal conduct is hand waived away by Trumpers while they have apoplectic fits over Hillary. Deplorable.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hell yes i would and i will go further and call for that persons jailing.
Click to expand...

Now I see the issue. Unlike you, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for political disagreement. That seems awfully intolerant, as well as intellectually untenable.
 
HRC used a private email server. This is bad because there could have been a security breach that left the US vulnerable to hostile foreign actors. Meanwhile, in realityland . . .

1) Ivanka Trump used a private email server and no one in the "lock her up" crowd seems to care.
2) Trump, his family, and his cronies *sought out* hostile foreign actors specifically to disrupt the democratic process of the 2016 election.
 
The Shrike said:
HRC used a private email server. This is bad because there could have been a security breach that left the US vulnerable to hostile foreign actors. Meanwhile, in realityland . . .

1) Ivanka Trump used a private email server and no one in the "lock her up" crowd seems to care.
2) Trump, his family, and his cronies *sought out* hostile foreign actors specifically to disrupt the democratic process of the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

And Trump uses an unsecured phone daily.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Now I see the issue. Unlike you, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for political disagreement. That seems awfully intolerant, as well as intellectually untenable.
Click to expand...

But this is what Dear Leader wants

Trump thinks the DoJ is there to do his bidding, that the AG is his personal lawyer, and that the FBI is his private investigation squad. He wants them to investigate and prosecute his political adversaries, and is too stupid to understand why he can't..
 
The Shrike said:
HRC used a private email server. This is bad because there could have been a security breach that left the US vulnerable to hostile foreign actors. Meanwhile, in realityland . . .

1) Ivanka Trump used a private email server and no one in the "lock her up" crowd seems to care.
2) Trump, his family, and his cronies *sought out* hostile foreign actors specifically to disrupt the democratic process of the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Hey, let’s not forget all the email (and other kinds of) evidence Trump has illegally destroyed over the years!
 
LSSBB said:
This has been repeatedly pointed out. TBD never acknowledged that they said he did not appear to be lying, not that they said he did not lie. At this point I believe it has to be an intentional trolling tactic to keep asserting that they said he did not lie.
Click to expand...

That is what Comey claimed, and you believe that ******* nonsense? McCabe who actually talked to the guys who said that he was truthful and it was not a great start to a false statements case.

They said there were inconsistencies between his statement and transcripts they had but did not show him.

Not a violation of 18 usc 1001.

/oh dear, in addition to the facts I have been raining down, I just cited a legal authority, indeed the legal authority. I betcha a nickel that the leftist will continue to **** post and call the big dog a troll, because they literally have nothing. Say, y'all let TBD what else you need explained.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Now I see the issue. Unlike you, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for political disagreement. That seems awfully intolerant, as well as intellectually untenable.
Click to expand...

lol! That is quite a hypothetical stand!

Too bad our posters don’t give a damn about actual partisan investigations.

Dream thread!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom