Politics Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Minstrel said:
Do elaborate.
Click to expand...

You're the one claiming he's lying. What in this is a lie?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/trump-denies-any-links-to-russia-no-loans-no-nothing.html

"I have had dealings over the years where I sold a house to a very wealthy Russian many years ago. I had the Miss Universe pageant — which I owned for quite a while — I had it in Moscow a long time ago. But other than that, I have nothing to do with Russia," Trump said.

Trump specifically said he has no investments or loans in or from Russia.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-mueller-enlists-the-irs-for-his-trump-russia-investigation

It’s been widely reported that the special counsel’s team is trying to “flip” Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign CEO, in hopes he will provide evidence against his former colleagues. Former federal prosecutors tell The Daily Beast one of Manafort’s biggest legal liabilities could be to what’s called a “check the box” prosecution. Federal law requires that people who have money in foreign bank accounts check a box on their tax returns disclosing that. And there’s speculation that Manafort may have neglected to check that box, which would be a felony. This is exactly the kind of allegation the IRS would look into.

These investigations, which are often extremely complex, can take a lot of time. That means the people involved sometimes have to spend significant amounts of money on legal fees. The Daily Beast previously reported that targets of Mueller’s probe—including Manafort—are facing financial strain because of the probe, and that Manafort recently parted ways with the law firm WilmerHale in part because of his financial troubles.
 
Denny Crane said:
You'd think if there were actual damage and a constitutional crisis at hand, getting rid of him ASAP would be their top priority.

Instead, their top priority is finding something, anything, among a bunch of bullshit claims, to be true.
Click to expand...
Kinda like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton in the 90's with Whitewater.......but you'll find a way to justify it. Unfortunately for you, you just set the bar using "actual damage and a constitutional crisis" as the criteria for this kind of situation. And please don't EVEN try to tell us that Bill's fuck ups were any more egregious than Donny's......
 
Denny Crane said:
You're the one claiming he's lying. What in this is a lie?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/trump-denies-any-links-to-russia-no-loans-no-nothing.html

"I have had dealings over the years where I sold a house to a very wealthy Russian many years ago. I had the Miss Universe pageant — which I owned for quite a while — I had it in Moscow a long time ago. But other than that, I have nothing to do with Russia," Trump said.

Trump specifically said he has no investments or loans in or from Russia.
Click to expand...

So who ended up with the $500 mill in the Rosneft deal?
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Kinda like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton in the 90's with Whitewater.......but you'll find a way to justify it. Unfortunately for you, you just set the bar using "actual damage and a constitutional crisis" as the criteria for this kind of situation. And please don't EVEN try to tell us that Bill's fuck ups were any more egregious than Donny's......
Click to expand...

I'll just leave it at this. The Clintons are the subject of numerous scandals for good reason.

The impeachment worked out as it should have - he was not removed from office, but held to account for his crimes.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'll just leave it at this. The Clintons are the subject of numerous scandals for good reason.

The impeachment worked out as it should have - he was not removed from office, but held to account for his crimes.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much how many of us expect things to work out for Donny........and why we're grateful for the investigation.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Which is pretty much how many of us expect things to work out for Donny........and why we're grateful for the investigation.
Click to expand...

Given all the time and investigation so far, nada, zip, zilch. By this time in Watergate, I think Nixon had resigned.

Clinton was suspended by the Arkansas state bar. He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court, too. To avoid prosecution after leaving office, he reached a plea deal with the special prosecutor, Ray. He paid Paula Jones $900K as part of that.

He wasn't innocent by any stretch.

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

And if you actually trust snopes to be the Truth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.html
 
Denny Crane said:
Given all the time and investigation so far, nada, zip, zilch. By this time in Watergate, I think Nixon had resigned.

Clinton was suspended by the Arkansas state bar. He was disbarred by the US Supreme Court, too. To avoid prosecution after leaving office, he reached a plea deal with the special prosecutor, Ray. He paid Paula Jones $900K as part of that.

He wasn't innocent by any stretch.

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

And if you actually trust snopes to be the Truth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.html
Click to expand...
Typical Denny spin. And how 'bout we wait until the investigation is concluded before we declare Trump innocent or guilty. I have yet to absolutely conclude (or label) Trump guilty. And while he is "innocent" until proven guilty, that doesn't yet mean he is truly innocent as you seem to conclude. Will you truly be surprised if he is indeed found guilty of charges that rival Bill Clinton's crimes in term of seriousness? They may not be impeachable offenses but they would be crimes nonetheless. Would you really support someone in the White House who was found to be guilty of crimes, even if they were committed prior to his election? As I said, let's wait for the investigation to complete its course. If you think Trump's hand are utterly clean you live in an alternate world. Donny too is "the suspect of numerous scandals for good reason".......
 
Denny Crane said:
You're the one claiming he's lying. What in this is a lie?
Click to expand...

He said during the campaign that he has never had dealings in Russia. He's gone so far as to say he doesn't call anyone in Russia, because he doesn't know anyone to call. It's pretty obvious that he has had dealings in Russia, whether or not they bore fruit.

"Russia is a ruse," Trump said. "I know you have to get up and ask a question. It's so important." He reiterated, "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago."​
 
Denny Crane said:
You'd think if there were actual damage and a constitutional crisis at hand, getting rid of him ASAP would be their top priority.

Instead, their top priority is finding something, anything, among a bunch of bullshit claims, to be true.
Click to expand...

Patience, Grasshopper. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

barfo
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Typical Denny spin. And how 'bout we wait until the investigation is concluded before we declare Trump innocent or guilty. I have yet to absolutely conclude (or label) Trump guilty. And while he is "innocent" until proven guilty, that doesn't yet mean he is truly innocent as you seem to conclude. Will you truly be surprised if he is indeed found guilty of charges that rival Bill Clinton's crimes in term of seriousness? They may not be impeachable offenses but they would be crimes nonetheless. Would you really support someone in the White House who was found to be guilty of crimes, even if they were committed prior to his election? As I said, let's wait for the investigation to complete its course. If you think Trump's hand are utterly clean you live in an alternate world. Donny too is "the suspect of numerous scandals for good reason".......
Click to expand...

Depends on the crime. Cheating on taxes, maybe not.

Lying about how an ambassador got killed, to avoid embarrassment while in the middle of a reelection campaign? I'd have problems with it.
 
Minstrel said:
He said during the campaign that he has never had dealings in Russia. He's gone so far as to say he doesn't call anyone in Russia, because he doesn't know anyone to call. It's pretty obvious that he has had dealings in Russia, whether or not they bore fruit.

"Russia is a ruse," Trump said. "I know you have to get up and ask a question. It's so important." He reiterated, "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago."​
Click to expand...

Still true. I'm not sure why you bolded what you did. You must desperately wish those words were untrue.
 
MarAzul said:
Wait?
Don't we presume innocence until we know otherwise?
Click to expand...

We do, unless we've seen evidence in the public record to show otherwise.

That's the problem for the presumed guilty crowd these days, no evidence in the public record.
 
Denny Crane said:
We do, unless we've seen evidence in the public record to show otherwise.

That's the problem for the presumed guilty crowd these days, no evidence in the public record.
Click to expand...

Patience, Grasshopper. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
We do, unless we've seen evidence in the public record to show otherwise.

That's the problem for the presumed guilty crowd these days, no evidence in the public record.
Click to expand...
Ah.....I assume you refer to your girlfriend, HRC......and this, still being America (and as you are exceedingly fond of pointing out) convictions in the court of public opinion don't mean shit (sometimes unfortunately). It's (as you continue to make clear) what happens in a court of law that matters. You've already tried and convicted Hillary, but you get your panties in a twist when anyone tries to do the same with Trump. You ride the devil's advocate card for all its worth but your bias shines like a beacon......
 
MarAzul said:
Nothing to reveal.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. Neither one of us knows, so it's probably best to wait and see.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
Still true. I'm not sure why you bolded what you did. You must desperately wish those words were untrue.
Click to expand...

He has made calls to Russia to conduct business. It just fell through. Absence of success is not absence of contact.
 
barfo said:
Patience, Grasshopper. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

barfo
Click to expand...

The "eventually we may find something" schtick is a major part of any conspiracy theory, even one as crazy as this one.
 
Minstrel said:
He has made calls to Russia to conduct business. It just fell through. Absence of success is not absence of contact.
Click to expand...

He's made calls? I think you're pulling that out of your ass. We know where the absence of fact lies (with you!).

You believe Russians when it suits your conspiracy theory, it seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.d3fce02258c1

As part of the discussions, a Russian-born real estate developer urged Trump to come to Moscow to tout the proposal and suggested that he could get President Vladimir Putin to say “great things” about Trump, according to several people who have been briefed on his correspondence.

The developer, Felix Sater, predicted in a November 2015 email that he and Trump Organization leaders would soon be celebrating — both one of the biggest residential projects in real estate history and Donald Trump’s election as president, according to two of the people with knowledge of the exchange.

Sater wrote to Trump Organization Executive Vice President Michael Cohen “something to the effect of, ‘Can you believe two guys from Brooklyn are going to elect a president?’ ” said one person briefed on the email exchange. Sater emigrated from what was then the Soviet Union when he was 6 and grew up in Brooklyn.

Trump never went to Moscow as Sater proposed. And although investors and Trump’s company signed a letter of intent, they lacked the land and permits to proceed and the project was abandoned at the end of January 2016, just before the presidential primaries began, several people familiar with the proposal said.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Ah.....I assume you refer to your girlfriend, HRC......and this, still being America (and as you are exceedingly fond of pointing out) convictions in the court of public opinion don't mean shit (sometimes unfortunately). It's (as you continue to make clear) what happens in a court of law that matters. You've already tried and convicted Hillary, but you get your panties in a twist when anyone tries to do the same with Trump. You ride the devil's advocate card for all its worth but your bias shines like a beacon......
Click to expand...

Convictions in the court of public opinion mean quite a bit. It just doesn't mean that a lawyer who's skilled at evading criminal conviction is "innocent."

I take issue with your understanding of the law. Guilty until proven innocent. Acquittal means innocent. You've asserted both of these things, and they're just unconstitutional (in the first case) and ignorant of the fact that criminals get acquittals all the time due to technical reasons (in the latter). Or the jury just makes the wrong ruling (do tell if OJ killed his wife...). Heck, even a finding of guilt isn't necessarily an indication of guilt (see convictions overturned due to DNA evidence).

I've not demanded any conviction in the court of law to prove guilt, or lack of one to prove innocence.

Per Hillary, the criminal statute is clear, and she committed the crime. You prove my point in bringing it up - just because the criminal isn't convicted, does not mean she's actually innocent. The proof is black and white, slam dunk. An analogous situation would be if there were only rumors she had that email server, or fired the travel office staff. There were no such "rumors" but actual events, documented in the public record.

Feel free to keep on misrepresenting what I've written. If it makes you think you win something, I'm happy for you.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think you're pulling that out of your ass. We know where the absence of fact lies (with you!).
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure he had no contact with Russians during a business deal that fell apart. How much contact remains to be seen. For a guy who's completely innocent of all wrong-doing, he sure lies a lot.
 
Denny Crane said:
Convictions in the court of public opinion mean quite a bit. It just doesn't mean that a lawyer who's skilled at evading criminal conviction is "innocent."

I take issue with your understanding of the law. Guilty until proven innocent. Acquittal means innocent. You've asserted both of these things, and they're just unconstitutional (in the first case) and ignorant of the fact that criminals get acquittals all the time due to technical reasons (in the latter). Or the jury just makes the wrong ruling (do tell if OJ killed his wife...). Heck, even a finding of guilt isn't necessarily an indication of guilt (see convictions overturned due to DNA evidence).

I've not demanded any conviction in the court of law to prove guilt, or lack of one to prove innocence.

Per Hillary, the criminal statute is clear, and she committed the crime. You prove my point in bringing it up - just because the criminal isn't convicted, does not mean she's actually innocent. The proof is black and white, slam dunk. An analogous situation would be if there were only rumors she had that email server, or fired the travel office staff. There were no such "rumors" but actual events, documented in the public record.

Feel free to keep on misrepresenting what I've written. If it makes you think you win something, I'm happy for you.
Click to expand...
It's kinda hard to "misrepresent" anything you've written, as your narrative changes to fit the days news (fake or otherwise). And I learned before I even joined the site that the only one who "wins" a debate here is you. The rest of us just play for top runner up. And plenty of us see a plethora of slam dunk proof that Donald Trump is a lying, tax dodging, ill mannered and boorish piece of shit who is utterly unqualified to lead this country, regardless of whether he was elected (by a minority of voters) or not. Sorry that doesn't fit your own narrative, but then, it's not your personal narrative that matters in my reality.....
 
Denny Crane said:
The "eventually we may find something" schtick is a major part of any conspiracy theory, even one as crazy as this one.
Click to expand...

Let's wait and see what happens is not part of any conspiracy theory. Your position, on the other hand, seems to get tougher every day. I don't envy you - but then you chose the rock, and you chose the steep hill, and you choose to keep trying to keep that rock from crushing you as it rolls downhill instead of leaping out of the way. Enjoy!

barfo
 
barfo said:
Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. Neither one of us knows, so it's probably best to wait and see.

barfo
Click to expand...

Actually we do know, all of us. There is nothing otherwise we would know of it by now and the planet would be ape shit over it! err, the liberal planet...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top