Trump Sr wrote Trump JR's lying statement on his meeting with Russian lawyer.

S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Now, wait. You went from "credible evidence of wrong-doing" to "could be interpreted as legal but potentially not nice stuff"?

I'll try again, what is the "WRONG DOING"

Seriously? "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." THAT guy is worried about a POTENTIALLY existing tape of weird hooker sex? The guy who is known to have gotten his mistress pregnant and married her, and that's not even the wife he has today - THAT guy is under the thumb of the guy who has a tape of him with hookers?

Really?
Click to expand...

As i said before let's wait and see what Mueller has to say. At this point there are way too many coincidences, points of contact and strange behavior between the administration and Russia for it to just be ineptitude. I don't have all the answers and I don;t think anyone does which is why we need to continue the investigation. Keep sticking your head in the sand all you want.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
As i said before let's wait and see what Mueller has to say. At this point there are way too many coincidences, points of contact and strange behavior between the administration and Russia for it to just be ineptitude. I don't have all the answers and I don;t think anyone does which is why we need to continue the investigation. Keep sticking your head in the sand all you want.
Click to expand...

I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I compared to Clinton. We KNOW through documents that her husband received $500k for a speech. We KNOW Podesta earned millions from Russia. We KNOW as Sec State she then gave 20% of our uranium to Russia. None of this is disputed. The IMPLICATION is she used her office for personal gain, illegal activity. THAT earns an investigation.



Move to Trump. We believe that perhaps maybe there might be a video of potentially weird activity with hookers, so maybe potentially a meeting between Trump's family and a lawyer that might have ties to potentially illegal activity by Putin may imply that some amount of legal activity that looks bad might maybe have happened, if we just knew some more stuff. Nothing was illegal, but we need an investigation into it. THAT is what you're saying.
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I compared to Clinton. We KNOW through documents that her husband received $500k for a speech. We KNOW Podesta earned millions from Russia. We KNOW as Sec State she then gave 20% of our uranium to Russia. None of this is disputed. The IMPLICATION is she used her office for personal gain, illegal activity. THAT earns an investigation.



Move to Trump. We believe that perhaps maybe there might be a video of potentially weird activity with hookers, so maybe potentially a meeting between Trump's family and a lawyer that might have ties to potentially illegal activity by Putin may imply that some amount of legal activity that looks bad might maybe have happened, if we just knew some more stuff. Nothing was illegal, but we need an investigation into it. THAT is what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Hey. As I've said before you are. Taking up the wrong tree. I'm not keeping anyone from investigating Hillary. Talk to your elected officials. You can't just get mad at people who don't like the Trump White House over what you perceive to be unfair action by the justice department of other investigators.

I don't control the investigation.
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Move to Trump. We believe that perhaps maybe there might be a video of potentially weird activity with hookers, so maybe potentially a meeting between Trump's family and a lawyer that might have ties to potentially illegal activity by Putin may imply that some amount of legal activity that looks bad might maybe have happened, if we just knew some more stuff. Nothing was illegal, but we need an investigation into it. THAT is what you're saying.
Click to expand...

:lmao: This sums it up very nicely. Think WAPO or NYT would use it as tomorrow's headline?
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
Hey. As I've said before you are. Taking up the wrong tree. I'm not keeping anyone from investigating Hillary. Talk to your elected officials. You can't just get mad at people who don't like the Trump White House over what you perceive to be unfair action by the justice department of other investigators.

I don't control the investigation.
Click to expand...

Emigrate to Iran
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Wishbone said:
Yeah... That sounds more like something you kind of freaks would be into.

We'll just call that one :bs:
Click to expand...

From what I read Trump was accused of hiring prostitutes to urinate in a bed that Putin had slept in.
Why would Trump waste money on BS like that when it would have been more satisfying to urinate in the bed himself---and cheaper too.

Definitely BS. But thats the kind of garbage that makes liberals tick.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
Hey. As I've said before you are. Taking up the wrong tree. I'm not keeping anyone from investigating Hillary. Talk to your elected officials. You can't just get mad at people who don't like the Trump White House over what you perceive to be unfair action by the justice department of other investigators.

I don't control the investigation.
Click to expand...

I don't either. But, you don't seem to be nearly as concerned with an actual crime committed as you are with the potential of maybe something legal happening that feels funny.

You're a hypocrite. I realized the sentence above is not as clearly specific as it needs to be to get through to you, so I went with the latter sentence, so you get it.
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I don't either. But, you don't seem to be nearly as concerned with an actual crime committed as you are with the potential of maybe something legal happening that feels funny.

You're a hypocrite. I realized the sentence above is not as clearly specific as it needs to be to get through to you, so I went with the latter sentence, so you get it.
Click to expand...

Again you are very bad and comparisons and should try sticking to discussing the topic at hand. It would make your life much easier.


Trump is the president what he does directly effects me now.

Clinton(s)/ have no role in our government at the moment and pursuing them at this point would be a waste of tax payer funds as they are private citizens. if you want to prosecute them and make them pay for their alleged crimes someone needs to bring up civil or criminal charges against them. As i am not a lawyer that is not my responsibility.

However my tax dollars are being used to pay for the current president and I have an inherent right to my opinion on his behavior and finding out whether or not it was legal.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
Again you are very bad and comparisons and should try sticking to discussing the topic at hand. It would make your life much easier.


Trump is the president what he does directly effects me now.

Clinton(s)/ have no role in our government at the moment and pursuing them at this point would be a waste of tax payer funds as they are private citizens. if you want to prosecute them and make them pay for their alleged crimes someone needs to bring up civil or criminal charges against them. As i am not a lawyer that is not my responsibility.

However my tax dollars are being used to pay for the current president and I have an inherent right to my opinion on his behavior and finding out whether or not it was legal.
Click to expand...

You absolutely do. I agree. No matter how wasteful the investigation is, since no one seems to be able to articulate even a potential crime that happened, you have the right to your opinion.

However, we don't stop politicians from being responsible for their actions while in office once they have left office. We know of a series of specific, actual crimes that were committed by someone who directly effects you now with decisions made while she held an office, while he held an office. That you are too blinded by hypocritical ideology to see it really doesn't change the facts of the matter one iota.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Sapidus said:
The meeting was not disclosed on Jr's disclosure forms and Sr. was covering up why he met with them as it could be interpreted as collusion so they made up the false adoption story.

Putin most likely has dirt on Trump "the Golden Shower tapes" or something else and Trump is doing everything he can to continue his relationship with Putin as one sided as it is and despite the House and Senate voting to hobble him on Russian Sanctions.


All of this adds up to enough circumstantial evidence that it can no longer all be coincidence, incompetence or lack of political smarts.
Click to expand...

Show me where that meeting met the requirement to be reported in the first place..

The SF86 doesn't require it to be reported, so I'm curious as to what inside knowledge you have that would...

Oh, and BTW and when asked.. Have you had any meetings with Russians?

He replied.. I'm sure I have.. I'm certain that I have.

Where is the lie in that, exactly??
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
You absolutely do. I agree. No matter how wasteful the investigation is, since no one seems to be able to articulate even a potential crime that happened, you have the right to your opinion.

However, we don't stop politicians from being responsible for their actions while in office once they have left office. We know of a series of specific, actual crimes that were committed by someone who directly effects you now with decisions made while she held an office, while he held an office. That you are too blinded by hypocritical ideology to see it really doesn't change the facts of the matter one iota.
Click to expand...


Boy you will say anything to defend Trump.

I told you my reasons why I was no longer concerned with the Clintons and how I was powerless to do anything about it and you still try to lecture me as to why i should be and after paying lip service to my "right to an opinion"


Do something about it. write your congress person or other representative. I understand you think Clinton(s) are the personification of evil but they have no power over you now.

You need to focus on what is going on now and stop living in the past. Or I guess you could go chant " lock her up" on the street corner if that will make you feel better
 
Last edited:
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
Show me where that meeting met the requirement to be reported in the first place..

The SF86 doesn't require it to be reported, so I'm curious as to what inside knowledge you have that would...

Oh, and BTW and when asked.. Have you had any meetings with Russians?

He replied.. I'm sure I have.. I'm certain that I have.

Where is the lie in that, exactly??
Click to expand...

You mean the part where they ask if you have provided support or advice to foreign business or foreign organization?

Which he omitted. Then updated repeatedly? How do you know what when on in the meeting? Where you there?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
Boy you will say anything to defend Trump.

I told you my reasons why I was no longer concerned with the Clintons and how I was powerless to do anything about it and you still try to lecture me as to why i should be and after paying lip service to my "right to an opinion"


Do something about it. write your congress person or other representative. I understand you think Clinton(s) are the personification of evil but they have no power over you now.

You need to focus on what is going on now and stop living in the past. Or I guess you could go chant " lock her up" on the street corner if that will make you feel better
Click to expand...

I appreciate your entirely unnecessary permission, but I think there are things worth investigating. Trump's connections with Russia just aren't one of them.

I ask you again for the source of the $500M line of credit of which you spoke. If there's actual truth to that (I doubt it, but who knows) then maybe my opinion will change. Unlike you, I'm open-minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top