Garden of Eden Escorts
Toronto Escorts

Omarosa: Trump Knew About WikiLeaks Emails Before They Came Out

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,562
113
Yes because they would leave a "traitor" in the WH for almost two years if they had evidence........

Why worry about national security and keep things a secret where impeachment is a political debate?

Leave him in, we want to muddy the mid term waters.

So funny.
Real justice takes time.
Patience, butler.

Mueller gets closer to Trump every day.

MUELLER IS CLOSING IN ON ROGER STONE
The special counsel is ramping up interviews with Stone associates, and paging through potentially damning e-mails.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/robert-mueller-roger-stone-randy-credico
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Penn Jillette Says Trump 'Apprentice' Tapes Exist: "I Was in the Room"

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertain...exist-i-was-in-the-room/ar-BBLWcNS?li=AAggFp5

"Penn Jillette says he knows for a fact Mark Burnett possesses tapes of President Donald Trump saying disparaging, racist remarks while working on the NBC reality show, Celebrity Apprentice.

The other half of the magician duo Penn and Teller (who appeared on Celebrity Apprentice in 2012) recently told Vulture he is positive recordings exist because "I was in the room" when Trump would say "racially insensitive things that made me uncomfortable.
"

Far-right character assassination attempts to begin in 5 .... 4 ....3 .....
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
I'm referring to the aspects of the investigation that have been reported on or spoken about to the media by those interviewed by Mueller. We know many of the persons he has interviewed, a number of them have told the press about the content of those interviews, and it's been easy to draw conclusions about his investigative tactics. CNN and MSNBC do little else than report on their interpretation of his tactics (prosecuting Manafort to intimidate him into providing evidence on Trump, if he has any, etc.). I'm not sure what you're are grinding on about this time, since I'm not criticizing Mueller's techniques.

The assessment that he has a weak file is my own (joined in by many other commentators) based on the absence of any indictments relating to Trump campaign collusion with Russians (really, the absence of any meaningful indictments at all, to this point), and the absence of any disclosure to the public by Mueller, witnesses he's interviewed, Congress, or any congressional witness, of any evidence suggesting that such indictments will be forthcoming. Instead, it now looks like he needs to try to make a case, if there is one to be made, out of interviewing Trump - and that's not going to happen.
As I suspected ...... you have no evidence and you are just expressing your typically uninformed biased opinion. With the usual smear of character assassination.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
As I suspected ...... you have no evidence and you are just expressing your typically uninformed biased opinion. With the usual smear of character assassination.
Egads, you are delusional! What makes you think that your opinions about myself or other posters hold any interest for me or anyone else? They don't. As usual, you decline to address any of the points made to you in favour of your ridiculous meta commentary. If you don't want an exchange about the points being made in a thread, don't bother posting.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
On the evidence thus far in this investigation, I don't think Mueller is doing anything outside of the bounds of what any other federal prosecutor would do. He's just been asked to work a weak file, and he has to rely on more tenuous evidence and witnesses, and more desperate prosecutorial techniques, than he would like. We'll see how he wraps it up.

Now, his testimony in connection with 9/11 and the Iraq war is a real smear on his personal credibility.
I would not call the evidence provided to Mueller by all the Intel Agencies as "weak". There is definitely a reason why it is taking this long and with the numerous indictions linked to this whole investigation suggests that time will tell.

Nothing smears his credibility. He provided the evidence handed to him by all the various departments regarding the Iraq War. Really, Bush should have waited for the UN International Commission to finish their Iraq investigation so as to confirm the findings. They had the real ground evidence, but obviously Bush wanted to take all the Brownie Points for his invasion of Iraq. 911 allegations are a conspiracy theory brought about by the right wing press. Wonder why these allegations suddenly come out of the closet once Mueller started this so called "witch hunt" of an investigation??
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I would not call the evidence provided to Mueller by all the Intel Agencies as "weak". There is definitely a reason why it is taking this long and with the numerous indictions linked to this whole investigation suggests that time will tell.
Well, anything COULD happen, but an opinion has to be based on what HAS happened. And so far, nothingburger. What indictments do we have so far? A bunch of Russians who will never be tried (and therefore the strength of those indictments will never be tested)? Manafort's shenanigans with Ukrainians well prior to 2016? Flynn not disclosing an innocuous contact with a Russian diplomat? Papadopolous lying to FBI agents, but not about anything that implicates the Trump team in Russian collusion? Gates, on the same shenanigans as Manafort? Pinedo - identity theft? Van der Zwaan - lying to the FBI about non-Trump related Manafort issues? Kilimnik - for obstructing the FBI in relation to Manafort's Ukrainian shenanigans? Where this investigation is, as an investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump team, is absolutely nowhere. By contrast, the Democratic Party connections to FISA abuse in relation to the FBI/Mueller investigation IS a worthy foundation for a different Russian collusion investigation.

Nothing smears his credibility. He provided the evidence handed to him by all the various departments regarding the Iraq War. Really, Bush should have waited for the UN International Commission to finish their Iraq investigation so as to confirm the findings. They had the real ground evidence, but obviously Bush wanted to take all the Brownie Points for his invasion of Iraq. 911 allegations are a conspiracy theory brought about by the right wing press. Wonder why these allegations suddenly come out of the closet once Mueller started this so called "witch hunt" of an investigation??
The reason that Mueller was called before Congress in the video I linked is because intelligence agencies are not always right. It was his job and responsibility to evaluate the information and opinion that was provided to him, form a judgement, and make a recommendation as to whether Congress should act on that information and opinion. The information he decided to rely upon was proven to be patently false. If he can be duped by intelligence advisers once, it certainly calls into question whether he applies sufficient scrutiny to such information and opinions provided to him from intelligence sources.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Egads, you are delusional! What makes you think that your opinions about myself or other posters hold any interest for me or anyone else? They don't. As usual, you decline to address any of the points made to you in favour of your ridiculous meta commentary. If you don't want an exchange about the points being made in a thread, don't bother posting.
Egads!

It's spelt "metacommentary". It appears you don't understand what that means. In truth, your posts would benefit from metacommentary as they are often unfocused, off-topic and rarely get to the point.

lolol - Your response is almost line-for-line what you said to Oagre last week. You have no ability to speak for anyone else, so ...... DON'T. You must care as you respond every time. You try to position yourself as a wise old sage here on Terb and when someone easily pokes holes in your dribble you tend to freak and hurl insults. I find that amusing.

What is there to respond to in your OP? You presented no facts. Your usual MO. I don't respond to your smear attempt of Mueller because it was off topic and a twisting of the truth. Your usual MO. Why would I play your game?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Egads!

It's spelt "metacommentary". It appears you don't understand what that means. In truth, your posts would benefit from metacommentary as they are often unfocused, off-topic and rarely get to the point.

lolol - Your response is almost line-for-line what you said to Oagre last week. You have no ability to speak for anyone else, so ...... DON'T. You must care as you respond every time. You try to position yourself as a wise old sage here on Terb and when someone easily pokes holes in your dribble you tend to freak and hurl insults. I find that amusing.

What is there to respond to in your OP? You presented no facts. Your usual MO. I don't respond to your smear attempt of Mueller because it was off topic and a twisting of the truth. Your usual MO. Why would I play your game?
I don't know why you do anything you do, and I don't care to guess. Thanks for being my spellchecker. Is that your purpose here on TERB? (Btw, "spelt" is more commonly spelled "spelled", to avoid confusion with a certain type of wheat, or was that a joke?) No thanks for your metacommentary about metacommentary.

If you didn't recognize any assertions of fact I made in support of my opinion (ie. the state of indictments, and the disclosure of related information, at this point in the investigation) as assertions of fact, far be it for me to insist that you respond to my posts.

P.s you didn't respond to what I had to say about Mueller and his testimony about WMDs for the straightforward reason that it would be difficult to defend.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
I don't know why you do anything you do, and I don't care to guess. Thanks for being my spellchecker. Is that your purpose here on TERB? (Btw, "spelt" is more commonly spelled "spelled", to avoid confusion with a certain type of wheat, or was that a joke?) No thanks for your metacommentary about metacommentary.

If you didn't recognize any assertions of fact I made in support of my opinion (ie. the state of indictments, and the disclosure of related information, at this point in the investigation) as assertions of fact, far be it for me to insist that you respond to my posts.

P.s you didn't respond to what I had to say about Mueller and his testimony about WMDs for the straightforward reason that it would be difficult to defend.
See, you just had to respond.

lololol. I see you looked up the grammar on Grammarist. Since this isn't the USA, my spelling is indeed the more correct one. Owned!
Thanks for your metacommentary about my metacommentary regarding your babbles.


"... recognize any assertions of fact I made ...... as assertions of fact ....... ". I'll let the bad grammer go this time. So because you say your comments are fact, they are indeed fact? NOPE! You are well known for making up information (aka fake, false, untruth, lies) and not supporting that information with references.

I just don't respond in a way that you bait. Sucks to be you.


Back to the original topic from post #13: Trump has told 4000+ well documented lies in the last ~2 years while in office. ~250 lies during his time on The Apprentice (in only 4-5 minutes of airtime per episode). G*d knows how many lies as the CEO of Trump Organization. Melania has certainly been told alot of lies. Polls show the public have more trust in Mueller than Trump. Here you are, a low regarded Terbite, defending a low regarded president over a well regarded LE official. Good luck!
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
See, you just had to respond.

lololol. I see you looked up the grammar on Grammarist. Since this isn't the USA, my spelling is indeed the more correct one. Owned!
Thanks for your metacommentary about my metacommentary regarding your babbles.


"... recognize any assertions of fact I made ...... as assertions of fact ....... ". I'll let the bad grammer go this time. So because you say your comments are fact, they are indeed fact? NOPE! You are well known for making up information (aka fake, false, untruth, lies) and not supporting that information with references.

I just don't respond in a way that you bait. Sucks to be you.


Back to the original topic from post #13: Trump has told 4000+ well documented lies in the last ~2 years while in office. ~250 lies during his time on The Apprentice (in only 4-5 minutes of airtime per episode). G*d knows how many lies as the CEO of Trump Organization. Melania has certainly been told alot of lies. Polls show the public have more trust in Mueller than Trump. Here you are, a low regarded Terbite, defending a low regarded president over a well regarded LE official. Good luck!
See, you just had to continue your metacommentary.

As to the number of Trump's lies, those numbers will continue to be meaningless so long as incorrect claims, exaggeration, bragging, jokes, and actual lies are accounted as being the same thing, and so long as the organizations doing the accounting aren't accountable to anyone for their own findings.

I'm glad you hold me in low regard. I'd be worried otherwise. And don't worry, whenever I truly do feel it sucks to be me, I'm always able to cheer myself up by comparing myself to you and others. Thanks for that. "Owned" - so high school, and 2005 high school at that! LOL! I feel better already.

p.s. Grammarist doesn't say your spelling is "the more correct one". Nor does it take issue with my claim that "spelled" is the more commonly used spelling (and why). It says your spelling is technically equally acceptable (outside of the US). I guess you just like making stuff up. However, most writers seek to avoid confusion for their readers, and offered the choice between two spellings that may be both technically correct, will choose the one that is least likely to confuse (i.e. doesn't have a secondary meaning) - unless they are intentionally using archaic diction for artistic effect. Just another subtlety you fail to comprehend.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Well, anything COULD happen, but an opinion has to be based on what HAS happened. And so far, nothingburger. What indictments do we have so far? A bunch of Russians who will never be tried (and therefore the strength of those indictments will never be tested)? Manafort's shenanigans with Ukrainians well prior to 2016? Flynn not disclosing an innocuous contact with a Russian diplomat? Papadopolous lying to FBI agents, but not about anything that implicates the Trump team in Russian collusion? Gates, on the same shenanigans as Manafort? Pinedo - identity theft? Van der Zwaan - lying to the FBI about non-Trump related Manafort issues? Kilimnik - for obstructing the FBI in relation to Manafort's Ukrainian shenanigans? Where this investigation is, as an investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump team, is absolutely nowhere. By contrast, the Democratic Party connections to FISA abuse in relation to the FBI/Mueller investigation IS a worthy foundation for a different Russian collusion investigation.



The reason that Mueller was called before Congress in the video I linked is because intelligence agencies are not always right. It was his job and responsibility to evaluate the information and opinion that was provided to him, form a judgement, and make a recommendation as to whether Congress should act on that information and opinion. The information he decided to rely upon was proven to be patently false. If he can be duped by intelligence advisers once, it certainly calls into question whether he applies sufficient scrutiny to such information and opinions provided to him from intelligence sources.
Mueller has really conducted this investigation with total dignity and will bring it to it's rightful conclusion.
Do not know what the problem is if Trump has "not colluded" with the Russians. Indictments galore already and still more to come. We know in the very least that Trump's will hire only the finest staff is all bogus as he has brought in the most corrupt individuals, some who we know have had contacts with the Russians and possibly Assange as well. So keep calm and let Mueller decide when to throw in the towel.
 
Toronto Escorts