|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Four costly investigations into Vince Foster's death. Nine long and costly investigations into Hillary's emails. No evidence of any crimes, not because they got a pass
but because there's no "there" there. (Mishandling classified information is not necessarily a crime, and it's pretty certain Hillary's misdeeds fall under the non-criminal part). Uranium One? Really? The nothingburgeriest of nothingburgers. Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law - Lawfare:
quote: Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Evidence on the dossirr, read the link I posted. What felonies? I will not read your link. It's your job to make the case.
Obviously your right-wing sources didn't tell YOU. Allegedly Trump instructed Cohen's and Pecker to pay the women off with their own funds for the express purpose of influencing the election which was a few weeks away. Says who? Cohen to whats his name the other day? Cohen who has turned against Trump hoping he'll get off easier? Lying Cohen talking to a lackey of the Clintons? abe: Stephanopoulos oh yeah /abe Yes Cohen did say that. Why do you believe him? Nobody liked him before, but now that he's a mouthpiece against Trump everybody loves him to pieces. Trump denies it, there is reason to believe Pecker initiated the Enquirer payment, not Trump. Who says it's iillegal to direct agents to make payments for you? It's his own money, he's paying for a personal transaction, there is no evidence whatever that it had anything to do with the campaign.
Those were illegal campaign contributions, far exceeding the limits on Cohen and AMI, and directing them would be illegal. There is no evidence except Cohen for this and why should anyone believe him? Rush said the offer came from Pecker to Trump, Pecker bought McDougal's story and killed it. Perhaps this occurred in August of 2014 as Rush says, I'm waiting to see. I certainly don't believe one thing I'm hearing from you Leftists. And the "limits" on campaign contributions do not apply to the candidate himself who can spend anything he wants on his own election.
The dossier was not the original reason for the investigation. The FBI's Russia investigation began in the summer of 2016 when investigators learned that a Trump campaign foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been importuned by Russian intelligence operatives in London. They offered him "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and "off-the-record" meetings with Russian officials. Unfortunately I'm not up on this but Papadopoulos has said he was misled and I don't remember the details. Besides there is nothing illegal about meeting with Russians even to get dirt on an opponent. What makes you think there is? None of those "Indictments, guilty pleas, and prison sentences" have anything to do with Russia collusion. Except of the Russians themselves. All the others are for personal crimes unrelated to the campaign or to Russia. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It's not just Cohen, it's AMI/National Inquirer. But I don't necessarily believe them. There's definitely enough there for an indictment. And there are recordings.
The timing of McDougall's payoff is a matter of public record. August 6, 2016. Limbaugh is lying. Oodles of evidence posted tomorrow if you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'll wait and see. As I said I don't trust anything from the Left, or from EvC, too much is political fraud and it's all based on hating Trump both personally and politically. The people I'm listening to are interviewing lawyers about all these things so why should i believe your lawyer? Mark Levin is a lawyer himself, so is Laura Ingraham.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What recordings? Of what? I don't believe a thing you say.
What public record? Google has 2015 not 2016, why should any of that be believed? I'm going witn Limbaugh for the time being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Except for the Russians themselves. "
quote: So far...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
1. I've heard a few interviews with Jerome Corsi about his experience of being investigated by the Mueller witch hunt which he describes as acting like the Gestapo or the KGB and trying to manipulate him to lie: and he wrote a book about it:
Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller's "Witch Hunt" 2. And another one that sounds interesting I've heard mentioned recently:
Licensed to Lie by Sidney Powell:
...The common thread through it all is a cabal of narcissistic federal prosecutors who broke all the rules and rose to great power. Still in the news today―Robert Mueller s pitbull" Andrew Weissmann and other members of Obama's inner circle―are wreaking havoc on our Republic. This is the book that began exposing the Deep State. 3. Another one I'd like to read if I had another life:
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America by Mark Levin. He's got other books I'd also like to read. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
the Left "investigates" anything at great cost to the taxpayers
The Mueller probe might actually turn a profit. https://www.cnbc.com/...rofit-thanks-to-manafort-assets.html As for cost, I haven't seen you once complain about trump spending a quarter of his time at his golf courses at great expense to the taxpayers. How much does each of Donald Trump's golf rounds cost taxpayers?It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: Somebody here said something about Trump being worried about impeachment. I can't find the post now. But anyway that's a perfect example of Fake News. They make up this stuff all the time based on nothing. Headlines galore every day on the internet insinuate something amiss in the White House. It's never true, it's just invented to create a false impression. If you listened to the Right thinkers you'd know that but instead you all fall for it just as they want you to. If Trump is unconcerned about impeachment, how would you know? Because he denies it publicly? He rarely tells the truth publicly, so that alone makes it a safe bet that he's concerned about impeachment. Let's examine the source of this information. From CNN: Trump concerned about being impeached, sees it as a 'real possibility,' source says quote: These sources are people "close to the President" and so forth. They aren't White House officials, who the article describes as believing differently:
quote: From NBC News: Trump confides to friends he's concerned about impeachment:
quote: NBC News is reporting the same thing as CNN, that Trump is confiding to friends that he's concerned about impeachment. Both stories also report that Trump is maintaining a confident public face. You claim to believe that NBC News and CNN are making up sources. Based upon what? You don't believe Trump talks to friends and that reporters know who they are? Even worse, Trump uses his unsecured personal cell phone to talk these friends, and as has been reported, likely the Russians and Chinese are listening in. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
AZPaul3 writes: Whether he's also impeachable is still a question open to opinion ... Let's assume these are impeachable offenses. To what end? Impeach Trump and have a heavily Republican Senate exonerate him. I covered this recently in another post. If Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses a decision must still be made about whether it's worth going ahead with impeachment, especially if the Senate would likely acquit. It depends on the specifics of the Articles of Impeachment, the strength of the evidence behind them, and Democratic estimates of the political cost to politicians on both sides in both houses. I was no fan of Bill Clinton (I wasn't exactly opposed to him either, but I definitely wasn't a fan) but was opposed to his impeachment because his offenses, though reprehensible, did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The nature of Trump's alleged offenses are of a different nature - if the evidence behind them exists then they are definitely impeachable. Then the House would have a difficult decision before it, whether to bring Articles of Impeachment forward for offenses that are definitely impeachable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You claim to believe that NBC News and CNN are making up sources. Yes or the sources are making it up. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: When first begun it wasn't thought that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election would lead to the Trump campaign, but it did. We've now learned that at least 16 people connected to the Trump campaign had contact with Russia. None of it has ever connected Trump with Russia, ever, and that was supposedly the whole point of the investigation. After two years of this there is still no connection with Russia. Mueller should long ago have said he was unable to fulfill the original aim of showing Russian collusion and shut down the investigation. What part of "the investigation is still ongoing and Mueller hasn't issued his report yet" don't you understand?
As for people having contacts with Russia why is it never mentioned that this is standard for any political campaign to make contact with foreign nations that would be affected by new policies, or just for whatever reason. Is that why they lied about the contacts, because it was all aboveboard?
Clinton had deals with Russia and that is completely ignored. Hillary Clinton had no deals with Russia. No Clinton campaign officials met with Russians like Trump campaign officials did. The Trump Tower meeting and all the other meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians are potentially problematic. It's against the law for foreign nationals to provide anything of value to a US election campaign. The common expectation is that this would be something of monetary value or the means to obtain something of monetary value, but if information is judged valuable to a campaign then that might satisfy the legal requirement. If any of these meetings were about something like the DNC or Podesta emails then they were of great value to the Trump campaign and would likely qualify. The Steele dossier doesn't qualify because it was never used by the Clinton campaign and so could not be deemed to have provided any value. Besides, the process that produced the Steele dossier was indirect. The Clinton campaign contracted with Fusion GPS who in turn contracted with numerous sources, including Daniel Steele who used his Russian contacts to obtain alleged information about Trump.
There is nothing suspicious about such contacts except when they want to find something to pin on Trump. If you don't find it suspicious then you have turned your mind off. Our intelligent agencies found that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign had all these contacts with Russians that they lied about. That's very suspicious.
Which they haven't found either. Again, what part of "Mueller hasn't released his report yet" don't you understand? This isn't rocket science. It could be that Trump and his campaign are completely innocent, it could be that they're guilty as sin, or it could be somewhere in between.
And there is nothing wrong with business deals either. Especially when Trump didn't even expect to win the election and naturally wanted to keep his businesses alive. Business as usual, nothing about the campaign at all. There's nothing wrong with business deals that don't involve things like trading penthouses for government permission to build.
And I'll wait and see what happens with this campaign payoff idea. Most of what I've been hearing is that it won't fly. It had nothing to do with the campaign,... Then you haven't been listening. We already know that Cohen and Pecker say it was done to help the campaign, and likely Weisselberg said the same thing, since Mueller seems to have additional confirming evidence.
...and even if it did there is no limit on how much the nominee himself is allowed to contribute to his own campaign. Trump didn't record any campaign contribution for these payoffs. Trump is still claiming they were personal to prevent hurt to his family. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
Trump is still claiming they were personal to prevent hurt to his family. I don't think Trump cares about hurting his family, the man is a well known serial adulterer. His current wife was one of his mistresses. I think if Melania was smart she had some sort of anti infidelity clause put into the pre-nup and he's afraid of triggering it. edit: re-reading your post I think you meant that "Avoid hurting his family" is part of his claim not that he's actually opposed to hurting his family, my post still sort of stands. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Trump supporters obviously do not like the opinion/analysis pieces that appear in the mainstream media, but I thought I would call attention to a couple recent analysis articles that disagreed with each other about the possibility of charges of collusion with Russia.
NPR reports that The Russia Collusion Case Looks Weaker Amid Focus On Cohen. Noting that a little information always leaks about what Mueller knows every time he goes to court, even though much of it is redacted, they say that no information has leaked about collusion, making the possibility of collusion charges less likely. But The Guardian asks whether As Mueller's inquiry deepens, is the net closing in on Trump? In particular they call attention to a little noticed part of the Cohen sentencing proceedings about Russian collusion:
quote: So one media outlet reports that the lack of bits and pieces of information about collusion indicates that charges are becoming less and less likely, while another reports on hints that Mueller has information about collusion that is not yet public. My own opinion is that there's no way to know for sure right now which way the collusion investigation will go. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add message subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Faith writes: 1. Payoffs, or Nondisclosure Agreements. Rush Limbaugh, yesterday I think, maybe Thursday, said over and over again that the deal Pecker of the Enquirer made to buy off Karen McDougal and kill the story was not in 2015 but August of 2014. Rush Limbaugh is lying to you. American Media offered to buy the rights to McDougal's story for $150,000 on August 5, 2016 (see Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal from the Wall Street Journal, a conservative outlet).
But if Limbaugh is right... Limbaugh is not right. He is making it up.
...that means there is no connection between the payoffs and the campaign at all since they occurred before Trump was campaigning for the election, possibly even before he was thinking of running. Not only did AMI purchase the rights to McDougal's story August of 2016, later that year close to the election Trump decided that it would be more secure if the Trump organization held the rights to the story, and so he had a conversation with Michael Cohen about purchasing the rights from AMI. Cohen recorded the conversation, and I assume we've all heard it. I can dig it out if you haven't.
And all the Right are pointing out that Congress has a special fund for paying off women who accuse Congressmen of sexual misconduct or harassment or whatever. The hypocrisy is damning. I agree, but who are you trying to criticize? Half of Congress is Republicans.
As for walls working he pointed out that the Berlin Wall certainly worked,... You mean this wall:
That's a cemetary on the left. Is a wide no-man's land overseen by armed towers with guards who have orders to shoot to kill really what you imagine? You want to do this across our entire southern border? It would certainly be very effective, but the expense over a 2000 mile border would be prohibitive. Fortress America - has a great ring to it, Trump should make it his 2020 reelection slogan.
...and the wall Israel built in 2004 has also worked, cutting down on the terrorist problem by 95%. Israel has much shorter borders, and the countries that border it are their sworn enemies providing aid and succor to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. We have peaceful neighbors.
It's also been pointed out by many that in 2006 THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR A WALL, including Pelosi, Obama and Hillary!!! But if Trump wants a wall, nope. False. From Fact-check: Did top Democrats vote for a border wall in 2006?:
quote: Guess we have to rate another of your comments false:
Moving on:
3. Oh a new one. The little Guatemalan girl who died after getting across the border, which is being blamed on the Border Patrol, who in fact did their best to save her. She had been deprived of food and water by her parents for days before they reached the US border, and a few hours after their arrival she started having seizures and the Border Patrol helicoptered her to a hospital where she died of dehydration and sepsis. The girl was part of a group of over 150 looking to get into the US illegally, who gave themselves up to the Border Patrol. Possibly her condition was overlooked during the processing of so many people, I don't really know what happened, haven't seen the details described, but it is clear she died because of having been deprived of food and water for days before she arrived in their custody. But they did their best to save her and all you lying Leftists should be sent to Mexico yourselves, such America-haters might as well go live where they won't hate the country they are living in. The family blames the border patrol, but it is not yet known if they are correct. The Washington Post ran a fairly balanced article: The 7-year-old girl who died in Border Patrol custody was healthy before she arrived, father says The story is confusing enough to tell us that we don't really know what happened yet, but neglect by border patrol agents seems unlikely. Boiling the story down to bear bones, the father arrived in the US with a healthy child seeking asylum, after eight hours they were picked up by a border patrol bus at which point the child was still healthy and had something to eat and drink, but then she became ill on the bus ride. The bus took them to the nearest medical facility, but by the time of arrival 90 minutes later she had stopped breathing and had a temperature of 105°. She died in the hospital about 15 hours later. I don't see that the border patrol did anything wrong. More information should become available in the weeks ahead. Another story from the Los Angeles Times has slightly different details but also does not blame the border patrol: The 7-year-old girl who died in Border Patrol custody showed symptoms of dehydration. Experts say they were warning signs. In this story the father and his daughter turned themselves in to border patrol agencies who took them to a bus depot where they waited for a number of hours before his daughter became ill. A bus was sent for but took to long to arrive, so she was flown to a hospital in El Paso where she later died. Note that these news report comes from the mainstream media and do not blame the border patrol. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024