Ah yes, the Russians are coming, as always.
Yeah. They kind of are.
It's scary how many Trump fans have "muh Russia" and "orange man bad!" engrained into their thought process.
Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 29. (Read 4095 times)
October 13, 2019, 06:18:46 AM
Yeah. They kind of are.
It's scary how many Trump fans have "muh Russia" and "orange man bad!" engrained into their thought process.
October 13, 2019, 06:01:47 AM
Eh - Stick with Drudge. Zerohedge is borderline propaganda at best.
Quote
In November 2014, Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of Houston, stated: "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[59][60] In December 2013, Zero Hedge accused Dr. Pirrong of being a "paid-for-Professor", who had "made a living of collecting "expert academic" fees by simply signing off on [wall street] memoranda", quoting a New York Times expose by David Kocieniewski into Dr. Pirrong.[61]
In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]
In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]
Ah yes, the Russians are coming, as always. The same things have been said about Drudge. Funny you support Drudge now that it has taken a decidedly leftist and establishment turn of late. I am willing to bet you were not a fan until very recently. Zero Hedge to a large degree focuses on financial issues including financial crimes, corruption, and over all exposing disruptive trends in the sector. Now why would leaders in the financial sector have any motive to slander people who are exposing financial crimes and cons? Maybe perhaps the things Zero Hedge regularly is critical of threatens their own investments? Hmm...
October 13, 2019, 05:16:36 AM
Not gonna quote and continue a lengthy quote chain
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
His lawyer at the time testified that it was to influence the election.
He made the payment weeks before the election. The affair happened years ago.
Does this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he made the payment because of the election? Maybe.
Could you argue it was just a coincidence that he the election just happened to be a couple weeks after the payments? Yes.
Does the evidence show probable cause that he committed a crime? Absolutely. There's more than enough to indict him and let a jury decide based on the facts.
At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who. Bill did it. I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk.
This isn't about who Trump fucked. Banging porn stars isn't illegal. Paying them to stay quiet isn't illegal. Nobody is saying either of those things are illegal.
Quote
Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream.
Eh - Stick with Drudge. Aside from their finance stuff Zerohedge is borderline propaganda at best.
Quote
In November 2014, Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of Houston, stated: "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[59][60] In December 2013, Zero Hedge accused Dr. Pirrong of being a "paid-for-Professor", who had "made a living of collecting "expert academic" fees by simply signing off on [wall street] memoranda", quoting a New York Times expose by David Kocieniewski into Dr. Pirrong.[61]
In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]
In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]
October 13, 2019, 04:41:28 AM
You were saying something about how I was making this personal?
You made it personal from the first page in this thread. That's pretty much all you do when you know you don't have an argument.
You mean like your very first subject heading post in this thread?
"Conspiratard Media Waves Poop Stick At Biden"
P.S. I don't consider being exceptionally more informed than you a difficult bar to meet.
You also think that sitting on your ass reading websites like ZeroHedge is the same thing as "going to the gym every day."
You inform yourself with the intellectual equivalent of Cheetos while convincing yourself they are protein bars. But do whatever satiates your incessant craving to feel superior to others, I suppose...Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream. If the information presented was so bad you should easily be able to argue against it rather than taking the intellectually lazy fallacious route of attacking the source. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. You probably think CNN is more reliable than Zero Hedge even though they are documented as regularly and overtly publishing false information and refusing to issue retractions. It is a simple task to say "source X" is invalid because I say so, and conveniently absolves you of any responsibility of addressing any of the content of the presented information.
Regarding your rigged Fox poll...
"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/
"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/
You didn't even bother to fact check this claim for yourself. If you would have, you would know that the information being quoted is from another poll. Looks like you need to switch your workout regimen, because whatever you are doing now isn't paying off.
Yes, a different poll.. because it is comparing the previous Democrat sample size with the latest one with an increased Democrat sample size. At least I can read stick boy.
October 13, 2019, 02:54:00 AM
You were saying something about how I was making this personal?
You made it personal from the first page in this thread. That's pretty much all you do when you know you don't have an argument.
P.S. I don't consider being exceptionally more informed than you a difficult bar to meet.
You also think that sitting on your ass reading websites like ZeroHedge is the same thing as "going to the gym every day."
You inform yourself with the intellectual equivalent of Cheetos while convincing yourself they are protein bars. But do whatever satiates your incessant craving to feel superior to others, I suppose...Regarding your rigged Fox poll...
"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/
"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/
You didn't even bother to fact check this claim for yourself. If you would have, you would know that the information being quoted is from another poll. Looks like you need to switch your workout regimen, because whatever you are doing now isn't paying off.
October 13, 2019, 02:14:40 AM
Not gonna quote and continue a lengthy quote chain
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who. Bill did it. I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk. What I want in a President is someone who is looking out for the country, not special interests
I want someone not influenced by lobbyists. I want someone willing to ruffle feathers to enforce laws.
And of course, how quickly everyone forgets the Republicans didn't want Trump on their ticket originally. He was always an admired friend of the Dems, until he got the Republican nod. It doesn't matter who beat Hillary. The pope could've run against her. Whoever beat her was going to face a wrath of attacks, slander, and lies. That's how the leftists roll. And they've proven it.
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who. Bill did it. I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk. What I want in a President is someone who is looking out for the country, not special interests
I want someone not influenced by lobbyists. I want someone willing to ruffle feathers to enforce laws.
And of course, how quickly everyone forgets the Republicans didn't want Trump on their ticket originally. He was always an admired friend of the Dems, until he got the Republican nod. It doesn't matter who beat Hillary. The pope could've run against her. Whoever beat her was going to face a wrath of attacks, slander, and lies. That's how the leftists roll. And they've proven it.
Furthermore, campaign finance disclosure laws are there to make sure undue influence is not being placed on candidates in secret. Did Donald Trump place undue secret influence on HIMSELF? His money went from his pocket to "his campaign" (or so the argument is right or wrong). The premise that he violated campaign finance laws is asinine. There is a argument Cohen did, but by far not any argument Trump did.
October 12, 2019, 09:37:40 PM
Not gonna quote and continue a lengthy quote chain
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who. Bill did it. I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk. What I want in a President is someone who is looking out for the country, not special interests
I want someone not influenced by lobbyists. I want someone willing to ruffle feathers to enforce laws.
And of course, how quickly everyone forgets the Republicans didn't want Trump on their ticket originally. He was always an admired friend of the Dems, until he got the Republican nod. It doesn't matter who beat Hillary. The pope could've run against her. Whoever beat her was going to face a wrath of attacks, slander, and lies. That's how the leftists roll. And they've proven it.
So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?
Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?
When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.
I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA. It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign. You can't. You can guess, assume, and reckon. But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign. It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc... easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.
Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk. Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge? Dude works construction too. Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.
At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who. Bill did it. I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk. What I want in a President is someone who is looking out for the country, not special interests
I want someone not influenced by lobbyists. I want someone willing to ruffle feathers to enforce laws.
And of course, how quickly everyone forgets the Republicans didn't want Trump on their ticket originally. He was always an admired friend of the Dems, until he got the Republican nod. It doesn't matter who beat Hillary. The pope could've run against her. Whoever beat her was going to face a wrath of attacks, slander, and lies. That's how the leftists roll. And they've proven it.
October 12, 2019, 09:10:28 PM
Well shit, Trump quotes Fox, clearly that means conservatives supports Fox. Case closed!
Good. Glad we're finally on the same page about something.
I never claimed to be extraordinary, but I could see how I would look that way to you. I am only extraordinary when compared to your lowly state of intellect.
You claim to be extraordinary in one way or another almost every day, which is why when you venture out of your comfort zone echo chamber here people think you're a riot. You're one of the most egotistical, self-flattering people on the entire forum, and that's saying a lot.
Your zealous overconfidence in your own abilities is truly breathtaking, but at the end of the day I have to remember it is no fault of your own, rather that of the personality disorder that you were predisposed to develop as a result of environmental/genetic conditions beyond your control.
Cool story bro. Where did you get your psychology license. I wasn't aware even trained professionals could diagnose people over the internet. With skills like that what are you doing wasting your time here when you could be making the big bucks? You were saying something about how I was making this personal?
P.S. I don't consider being exceptionally more informed than you a difficult bar to meet.
Regarding your rigged Fox poll...
"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/
Wait a second. You really don't think there's evidence that Trump told him to make the payment? We have copies of the checks. Tapes of Cohen and Trump discussing payments to a different porn star. It was Trumps personal lawyer making the payments. And trying to discredit him as someone that's a liar is ridiculous. He was lying about the Trump Tower in Moscow deal to protect Trump.
Of course no conclusions were made about Trump in Cohens proceedings. It was Cohen being charged.
It's mind blowing that you seem to have somehow convinced yourself that Trump is not guilty of this crime but consider Biden 100% had fraudulent intentions by demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor.
Of course no conclusions were made about Trump in Cohens proceedings. It was Cohen being charged.
It's mind blowing that you seem to have somehow convinced yourself that Trump is not guilty of this crime but consider Biden 100% had fraudulent intentions by demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor.
Is there evidence Trump committed a crime? Present it then. Your argument is he made illegal campaign contributions to HIMSELF using HIS OWN MONEY? WHAT? Like I said Cohen committed the crime, not Trump. Additionally he has been proven to perjure himself in the court of law, making his testimony totally useless. Your speculation of what you think happened is not evidence of anything but your desperation to get Trump. As usual, more of the same...
More: "Get the Popcorn!… Biden Just Tossed Obama Under the Bus, “Obama White House Approved Hunter Biden’s Position”"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/get-the-popcorn-biden-just-tossed-obama-under-the-bus-obama-white-house-approved-hunter-bidens-position/
October 12, 2019, 08:40:10 PM
Sure he made a payment. I dont doubt that at all. I think the issue is somewhere in the foggy issue of disclosure related to campaigns. Technicalities. Bill wasn't impeached for cumming on Monica's dress, he was impeached for lying about it. No biggie.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws?amp
This is actually a good impartial read regarding the "hush money" situation.
Like the author, I am quite versed in criminal law and a fair amount of civil law. But "Campaign Finance Laws" are a strange twisted beast that I never bothered to decipher.
I know for a fact that offering cash in exchange for a signed NDA is not a crime. I can see an issue if one used monies raised for a campaign to pay a personal debt or to exchange for an NDA. But I see no issue if personal monies were used to facilitate the NDA. I'm not sure where the campaign finance law was violated. Someone didn't disclose something. Ok. A rich guy screwed a hot chick. Not surprised at all.
But, in the true art of the deal, he only paid $130,000 of his own money to make the deal. How much did the Congress spend of TAXPAYER money to settle their indiscretions? $17 Million. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
Another case of: it's ok for everyone else to do to, but if Trump does it.... game on.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws?amp
This is actually a good impartial read regarding the "hush money" situation.
Like the author, I am quite versed in criminal law and a fair amount of civil law. But "Campaign Finance Laws" are a strange twisted beast that I never bothered to decipher.
I know for a fact that offering cash in exchange for a signed NDA is not a crime. I can see an issue if one used monies raised for a campaign to pay a personal debt or to exchange for an NDA. But I see no issue if personal monies were used to facilitate the NDA. I'm not sure where the campaign finance law was violated. Someone didn't disclose something. Ok. A rich guy screwed a hot chick. Not surprised at all.
But, in the true art of the deal, he only paid $130,000 of his own money to make the deal. How much did the Congress spend of TAXPAYER money to settle their indiscretions? $17 Million. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
Another case of: it's ok for everyone else to do to, but if Trump does it.... game on.
A campaign has to disclose where all money comes from and what it's spent on. Campaigns can spend money on, and must report anything that is "a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value to influence a federal election." The fact that it came out of Trumps pocket is irrelevant. He reported around $10 million to the FEC that he donated to his own campaign without issue.
Trump knew the law and decided to break it.
I think the general consensus on both sides is that campaign finance laws are crucial to the democratic process. We need to know where the money is coming from that's being used to give people power. I suppose we could debate whether they should be amended to exclude hush money payments.
Also, it's gross how much congress has spent of taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment claims and something should be done about that also. If any of the settlements were paid while a member of congress was an official candidate for the next election I think that would probably qualify as a violation? Maybe not though if it came from federal funds, since federal funds can't be used to campaign. That's tricky.
October 12, 2019, 06:34:49 PM
Sure he made a payment. I dont doubt that at all. I think the issue is somewhere in the foggy issue of disclosure related to campaigns. Technicalities. Bill wasn't impeached for cumming on Monica's dress, he was impeached for lying about it. No biggie.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws?amp
This is actually a good impartial read regarding the "hush money" situation.
Like the author, I am quite versed in criminal law and a fair amount of civil law. But "Campaign Finance Laws" are a strange twisted beast that I never bothered to decipher.
I know for a fact that offering cash in exchange for a signed NDA is not a crime. I can see an issue if one used monies raised for a campaign to pay a personal debt or to exchange for an NDA. But I see no issue if personal monies were used to facilitate the NDA. I'm not sure where the campaign finance law was violated. Someone didn't disclose something. Ok. A rich guy screwed a hot chick. Not surprised at all.
But, in the true art of the deal, he only paid $130,000 of his own money to make the deal. How much did the Congress spend of TAXPAYER money to settle their indiscretions? $17 Million. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
Another case of: it's ok for everyone else to do to, but if Trump does it.... game on.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws?amp
This is actually a good impartial read regarding the "hush money" situation.
Like the author, I am quite versed in criminal law and a fair amount of civil law. But "Campaign Finance Laws" are a strange twisted beast that I never bothered to decipher.
I know for a fact that offering cash in exchange for a signed NDA is not a crime. I can see an issue if one used monies raised for a campaign to pay a personal debt or to exchange for an NDA. But I see no issue if personal monies were used to facilitate the NDA. I'm not sure where the campaign finance law was violated. Someone didn't disclose something. Ok. A rich guy screwed a hot chick. Not surprised at all.
But, in the true art of the deal, he only paid $130,000 of his own money to make the deal. How much did the Congress spend of TAXPAYER money to settle their indiscretions? $17 Million. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
Another case of: it's ok for everyone else to do to, but if Trump does it.... game on.
October 12, 2019, 04:29:43 PM
Yes. That money. The money that his lawyer got 3 months of his prison sentence for.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence. There's already been one conviction for it.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence. There's already been one conviction for it.
"Cohen pleaded guilty to failure to report personal income taxes for the five-year period beginning in 2012. He also admitted to making false statements to a financial institution tied to a credit decision around February 2015, to willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from at least June 2016 to October 2016, and to making an excessive campaign contribution on October 27, 2016, according to his plea agreement."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/michael-cohen-appears-in-court-over-hush-payments-plea-update
I see crimes Michael Cohen is responsible for. The only evidence of wrong doing on the part of Trump is the testimony of a man facing prosecution that has been a proven liar in the court of law. No conclusions about Trump's guilt were made in the proceedings of this case, let alone any accusations against him.
Wait a second. You really don't think there's evidence that Trump told him to make the payment? We have copies of the checks. Tapes of Cohen and Trump discussing payments to a different porn star. It was Trumps personal lawyer making the payments. And trying to discredit him as someone that's a liar is ridiculous. He was lying about the Trump Tower in Moscow deal to protect Trump.
Of course no conclusions were made about Trump in Cohens proceedings. It was Cohen being charged.
It's mind blowing that you seem to have somehow convinced yourself that Trump is not guilty of this crime but consider Biden 100% had fraudulent intentions by demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor.
October 12, 2019, 07:07:49 AM
Well shit, Trump quotes Fox, clearly that means conservatives supports Fox. Case closed!
Good. Glad we're finally on the same page about something.
I never claimed to be extraordinary, but I could see how I would look that way to you. I am only extraordinary when compared to your lowly state of intellect.
You claim to be extraordinary in one way or another almost every day, which is why when you venture out of your comfort zone echo chamber here people think you're a riot. You're one of the most egotistical, self-flattering people on the entire forum, and that's saying a lot.
Your zealous overconfidence in your own abilities is truly breathtaking, but at the end of the day I have to remember it is no fault of your own, rather that of the personality disorder that you were predisposed to develop as a result of environmental/genetic conditions beyond your control.
October 12, 2019, 06:35:47 AM
Actually I just pointed out how stupid people like you are for believing that Fox news represents conservatives. It wasn't even an attempt at discrediting the information presented, but whatever you can imagineer for more NO U! moments, go for it. I don't at all think I am infallible.
Donald Trump quotes FOX News more than any other news source for a particular reason. Care to take a guess at what it may be?
As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you.
Here's the problem: the knowledge you have supposedly obtained is self-taught in an extremely selective and retarding manner. You've obviously spent more time re-buttressing your rigid belief system than you have learning the way that things actually work. All you are doing is flaunting how much time you wasted developing useless skills as a political armchair quarterback.
I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be.
The only extraordinary skill you possess is being able to convince yourself that you are right no matter how many times and in how many different ways you are proven wrong. But your statement speaks volumes about how your personality arrived at the condition it currently is in.
Well shit, Trump quotes Fox, clearly that means conservatives supports Fox. Case closed! I never claimed to be extraordinary, but I could see how I would look that way to you. I am only extraordinary when compared to your lowly state of intellect.
October 12, 2019, 06:18:16 AM
Any bit of news you don't agree with, you immediately attack the source. You've done this for everything that starts to cross your wires, most recently FOX News, which was particularly hilarious. What you think is logic other people think is laughable. You do everything from the mindset that you are infallible. Nobody else sees you this way, which is why you have a hard time interacting with a community.
Keep posting your meme though when you're literally the only on here screaming "NO U." Its another great example of your inability to perform the slightest bit of introspection.
Keep posting your meme though when you're literally the only on here screaming "NO U." Its another great example of your inability to perform the slightest bit of introspection.
Actually I just pointed out how stupid people like you are for believing that Fox news represents conservatives. It wasn't even an attempt at discrediting the information presented, but whatever you can imagineer for more NO U! moments, go for it. I don't at all think I am infallible. As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you. I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be. I am very sorry you haven't invested more time into educating yourself, but your feels and boo boos ren't my concern.
October 12, 2019, 05:55:10 AM
"Muh documentation and evidence"... get real. Any time someone presents "documentation and evidence" that contradicts your views you just deride it as "fake news." You consistently decide that your evidence is real yet everybody else's is false. There's no point in talking to you as you can't be reasoned with.
And once again, accusing others of using your primary argument tactic... Wow, what a strong move. At least you are consistent and unflinching in your head-up-assness.
And once again, accusing others of using your primary argument tactic... Wow, what a strong move. At least you are consistent and unflinching in your head-up-assness.
When did I use the term "fake news"? I don't just refute the sparse amounts of evidence you bother to present, I counter it with my own documentation and logic based arguments. You, you have to wait for me to say something clever, change it around a bit, repeat it back to me, and then...
October 12, 2019, 05:42:07 AM
Again, you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. The irony is lost on you that you engage in the very same behavior that you accuse your opponents of engaging in.
Trump has fucked himself royally this time. Have fun screaming into your pillow over it.
Trump has fucked himself royally this time. Have fun screaming into your pillow over it.
Whatever you want to tell yourself buttercup. I have logic based arguments backed by documentation and evidence, you have...
October 12, 2019, 04:11:42 AM
Yes. That money. The money that his lawyer got 3 months of his prison sentence for.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence. There's already been one conviction for it.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence. There's already been one conviction for it.
"Cohen pleaded guilty to failure to report personal income taxes for the five-year period beginning in 2012. He also admitted to making false statements to a financial institution tied to a credit decision around February 2015, to willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from at least June 2016 to October 2016, and to making an excessive campaign contribution on October 27, 2016, according to his plea agreement."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/michael-cohen-appears-in-court-over-hush-payments-plea-update
I see crimes Michael Cohen is responsible for. The only evidence of wrong doing on the part of Trump is the testimony of a man facing prosecution that has been a proven liar in the court of law. No conclusions about Trump's guilt were made in the proceedings of this case, let alone any accusations against him.
Rather ironically, your entire counterargument always boils down to this:
You accuse somebody of doing something you yourself are already doing, even if what you are accusing them of is hypocrisy.
The Bidens will not be found guilty (or likely even charged) with any crimes, whatsoever. Regardless of how desperate you want to make the matter a personal one, the fact remains that Trump's ratings are in the sewer over this issue. Your desperate appeal to take the focus of the subject off Trump and place it on Biden does not change this.
Among all available polls, Biden still has the greatest margin over Trump in terms of 2020 dem candidates. The fallout you were hoping for just isn't materializing.
You accuse somebody of doing something you yourself are already doing, even if what you are accusing them of is hypocrisy.
The Bidens will not be found guilty (or likely even charged) with any crimes, whatsoever. Regardless of how desperate you want to make the matter a personal one, the fact remains that Trump's ratings are in the sewer over this issue. Your desperate appeal to take the focus of the subject off Trump and place it on Biden does not change this.
Among all available polls, Biden still has the greatest margin over Trump in terms of 2020 dem candidates. The fallout you were hoping for just isn't materializing.
You never cease to amaze me with how shallow your attempt at a logical argument is. I tell you you are just projecting and detail the strategy of accusing your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of, and how do you respond? You once again accuse me of what I just accused you of in a perpetual loop. Ironic indeed. You have zero arguments and thus completely rely on this pathetic strategy in an attempt to confuse the situation perpetually in a last ditch attempt to escape culpability.
I want to make this personal? Who was it that brought external forum trust system issues into this discussion? Oh right, you. Just because you repeatedly eat the vomit of your favorite echo chamber and puke it up over any over again doesn't make it any closer to reality. You suffer from the delusion that the media defines reality. Biden doesn't have a chance against Trump, and the list of names that will be prosecuted related to this corruption will blow your head out of your ass with so much force you will suffer a prolapse. Just like 2016 the hubris of leftards like you assured of your correctitude and victory will lead to 4 more years of Trump, so thanks for being your own worst enemy.
October 12, 2019, 02:39:04 AM
What's funny is Trump's tweeted picture of Biden -- those Burisma advisory board guys were never charged with crimes. The same can't be said for the guys in Don Jr's picture. "LOOK AT THIS PHOTO!" - your ass of a president seems to think photographic evidence, no matter how actually irrelevant to anything, really matters.
Bidens son also worked with the other guy for years before they were on the Ukranian board together. The picture doesn't prove that they talked about their Ukraine business.
October 12, 2019, 02:33:20 AM
As I already explained, they controlled the DOJ and the FBI with their own criminally complicit minions,so no, they wouldn't have been prosecuted, that is until Trump got in and cleaned house. There is a plethora of evidence against the Bidens, Killery and others publicly available. What is the evidence against Trump? Please do tell, I have been waiting 3 years to hear one single scrap of evidence of his guilt. I look forward to the cricket sounds.
I'm talking about now.
Trump has been in office for almost 3 year.
Why isn't Hillary locked up?
Why hasn't Trump appointed an independent prosecutor like he promised?
Imagine how happy it would make his base.
Why do you think nobody is pushing this issue? Why isn't Hannity and Tucker bringing it up?
I think it's because they know the answer.
What is the evidence against Trump? Please do tell, I have been waiting 3 years to hear one single scrap of evidence of his guilt. I look forward to the cricket sounds.
Well, for starters he tried to hide the 140k hush money payment from the FEC by having his lawyer make the payment with a shell company. He then repaid the lawyer monthly for the next year.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence.
Oh you mean the money he paid from his own funds to prevent a stripper with a multiple felon lawyer from attempting to smear him in public by turning his personal life into a circus, having absolutely nothing to do with election funds? The money that has already been investigated and ruled as not a violation of the law, you mean that hush money?
Yes. That money. The money that his lawyer got 3 months of his prison sentence for.
Whether you like it or not, this is a federal crime, and there's more than a scrap of evidence. There's already been one conviction for it.
October 12, 2019, 01:56:36 AM
So calling some one a criminal means that they don't get due process? Cool story bro. Careful not to stretch that premise any more or it will break. The Bidens as well as others are guilty of the crime of selling influence, extortion, bribery, and I am sure many other crimes that will be later defined in a court of law.
You've already made up your mind that they are criminals despite knowing absolutely nothing about what actually happened or how laws pertaining to these matters work. You are denying them due process in your own mind, which thankfully counts for zero as far as reality is concerned.
Regarding your picture... So he had a meal with these guys, clearly case closed! You certainly can't find all kinds of prominent politicians taking photos with people who later turn out to be criminals.
What's funny is Trump's tweeted picture of Biden -- those Burisma advisory board guys were never charged with crimes. The same can't be said for the guys in Don Jr's picture. "LOOK AT THIS PHOTO!" - your ass of a president seems to think photographic evidence, no matter how actually irrelevant to anything, really matters.
The money they gave to the Trump PAC wasn't even used. I am also willing to bet the fact that they put it in a segregated account means they expected this and were simply baiting them so they could be prosecuted and turned to state's evidence. The sheer desperation from the left to project false equivelence upon the situation is quite pathetic.
Like you, Trump is in full meltdown mode. Not exactly the kind of behavior you would expect from someone who was carefully orchestrating everything to pwn the dems.
Turns out the Bidens aren't the only ones under investigation for their work in the Ukraine:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-investigation.html
Absolutely nothing? Uh, no. There is plenty of evidence of his criminal activity already in the public domain. Evidence such as that is completely lacking during the 3 years of the Russian collusion delusion inquisitions. What the fuck are you even rambling about "due process in your own mind?" Are you retarded or just that desperate to project and mirror these accusations in order to synthesize the artificial appearance of equivalence, or both? Are you arguing now I am not free to draw my own conclusions until you and or the court tells me what I should be thinking? Is my free thought offensive to you and oppressive to the Bidens? Am I guilty of wrongthink? I am having a hard time warping and contorting my mind severely enough to even understand your attempt at a premise here.
Regarding the photo of Biden with Burisma board members, this is significant because Joe Biden claimed to not have ever discussed the issue with his own son let alone the other board member, and this is significant evidence contradicting that claim. Furthermore, as far as I know, no one was charged, because the investigation was forced to be ended prematurely. The investigation was never completed, meaning they most certainly are not in the clear.
Regarding the claims against Giulianni... again this is a pathetically transparent attempt at once again, ad nauseam trying to accuse their opponent of the crimes they themselves are guilty of in order to create a sense of equivalence and thus distract from their own crimes. This is getting to be a disgustingly predictable tactic with diminishing returns. It would almost be humorous how retarded people like you look constantly screeching "NO U!!!1" if it were not so destructive to the fabric of our nation.
The toddler like levels of intellect mirroring and projecting would be quite amusing. Of course you don't give a shit about that living thousands of miles away in Asia now do you captain expat? Some how you still feel you have a right to dictate our domestic policy even though you have little to no stake in the situation from your safety thousands of miles outside of our borders. The accusations against Giuliani amount to guilt via association, and there is no evidence he acted improperly as an agent of Parnas or Fruman.
Furthermore he, as per your own source reported the information he obtained from them to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. You would think if he was up to something illicit he would refrain from tying himself to these people in any way now wouldn't you? In summary, like the unrelenting politically motivated and insubstantial investigations are just more of the same tactic of synthesizing false equivalence, and without actual evidence it consists of nothing more than this...
NO U!!!1
Jump to: