|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 9:39:59 GMT -6
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 6, 2018 11:11:48 GMT -6
So you're excusing Frum lying and fabricating this scenario because of something that may or may not have happened in 1974? And Seymour Hersh? Stop. |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 11:41:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 13:02:25 GMT -6
Deep State
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 6, 2018 13:17:31 GMT -6
abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-watchdog-finds-comey-defied-authority-fbi-director/story?id=55670834The draft of Horowitz’s wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources. Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign. Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 13:20:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 6, 2018 13:22:29 GMT -6
www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/mueller-team-zeroes-in-on-encrypted-apps-as-witness-turn-in-phones.htmlSpecial counsel Robert Mueller‘s team is requesting that witnesses turn in their personal phones to inspect their encrypted messaging programs and potentially view conversations between associates linked to President Donald Trump, sources told CNBC. Since as early as April, Mueller’s team has been asking witnesses in the Russia probe to turn over phones for agents to examine private conversations on WhatsApp, Confide, Signal and Dust, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Fearing a subpoena, the witnesses have complied with the request and have given over their phones, the sources said. While it’s unclear what Mueller has discovered, if anything, through this new request, investigators seem to be convinced that the apps could be a key to exposing conversations that weren’t previously disclosed to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 13:38:36 GMT -6
I promise we have only seen 1% of their talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 6, 2018 13:48:44 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-06/bombshell-claim-raises-new-questions-mueller-threatened-charge-papadopoulosSimona Mangiante Papadopoulos, an Italian attorney who married Papadopoulos roughly 90 days ago, claimed that Mueller had evidence her husband had worked on behalf of Israel without registering as a foreign agent during his time as an energy consultant, and prior to joining the Trump campaign. The claim was made in interviews with the Daily Caller and the Washington Post - where Simona also said George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to avoid the Israel-linked charges. “I know he doesn’t have anything to do with Russia,” she told The Post. “We know he was under scrutiny because of his ties to Israel, not his ties to Russia. So what’s this about?” In October 2015, Papadopoulos wrote a column for the Israeli publication Haaretz entitled “Natural Gas Isn’t Just about Israel.” He also attended a series of energy conferences in Israel, including one held in April 2016, just days after he was named to Trump’s campaign, according to Israeli media accounts. During those years, he became acquainted with Eli Groner, who has served since 2015 as a top aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. -WaPo Simona's new claims are vastly different than what she said in January before she and George married - when she suggested to the Washington Post that Papadopoulos would be remembered like John Dean, the former White House counsel who flipped on Nixon's administration and became a key witness. “There’s a lot to come,” she said then. “He was the first one to break a hole on all of this.” On Tuesday, however, her tune had changed - saying that her earlier comments were misinterpreted and that she and George had reassessed events after learning that Cambridge professor Stefan Halper had been conducting espionage on the Trump campaign for the FBI. Halper hired Papadopoulos to write an energy paper in London in the fall of 2016, paying him $3,000 for his efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 15:27:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 6, 2018 17:31:58 GMT -6
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-transition-team-goes-to-war-over-rogue-fbi-agent?ref=homeThe Trump transition team may demand an investigation after tens of thousands of emails were handed to the Mueller probe without consent or warrants. At the time, it was one of the more controversial moments of Robert Mueller’s probe: Late last year, news broke that a federal agency turned over tens of thousands of private emails of Trump transition team officials to the special counsel’s team—without a warrant, and without getting the officials’ permission. Now, according to communications reviewed by The Daily Beast, the transition team is fighting back. They are threatening to call for an inspector general’s investigation of the General Services Administration (GSA), which gave the emails to Mueller, and to potentially try to have officials there sanctioned by the D.C. Bar. The transition team also charges that the GSA is trying to cover up the involvement of controversial FBI agent Peter Strzok in the allegedly illegal seizure of their emails. A lawyer for the transition team wrote that Strzok “played a larger-than-previously known role in unlawfully seizing our client’s records.”… …According to the transition team communications reviewed by The Daily Beast, the GSA’s then-General Counsel Richard Beckler assured the transition team that it was merely housing the materials, and that any communications would be locked securely away from prying eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 20:51:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 20:52:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 20:53:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 20:54:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 20:57:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 21:09:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 6, 2018 21:17:43 GMT -6
|
|
scout
Quarantined
Posts: 58
|
Post by scout on Jun 6, 2018 21:28:08 GMT -6
Didn't she say that they were talking about his grandkids? It is still a shady meeting, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 7, 2018 3:57:24 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/george-papadopoulos-millian-suspicious/Mangiante also said that Papadopoulos and Millian met multiple times in Chicago and New York City before the election. In one encounter in Chicago, Millian offered Papadopoulos a substantial sum of money as part of an energy-related business deal. The catch was that Millian said Papadopoulos would have to remain in the Trump administration while carrying out the work. The business offer has been previously reported by The New York Times and NBC News. However, Mangiante is providing new details, saying that Millian offered Papadopoulos “$30,000 a month to work as a consultant while with Trump.”
|
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on Jun 7, 2018 4:47:02 GMT -6
So you're excusing Frum lying and fabricating this scenario because of something that may or may not have happened in 1974? And Seymour Hersh? Stop. Oh, for Fuck's Sake. Mr. Frum didn't lie. He came up with a hypothetical situation. He did not state as fact that President Trump had ever laid a hand on the First Lady. I theorized that Mr. Frum might have read the memoir or heard Mr. Hersh talking about the issue. How is Mr. Frum coming up with that hypothetical any different from Mr. Giuliani saying that the President couldn't be indicted after shooting Mr. Comey? |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 7, 2018 5:10:38 GMT -6
So you're excusing Frum lying and fabricating this scenario because of something that may or may not have happened in 1974? And Seymour Hersh? Stop. Oh, for Fuck's Sake. Mr. Frum didn't lie. He came up with a hypothetical situation. He did not state as fact that President Trump had ever laid a hand on the First Lady. I theorized that Mr. Frum might have read the memoir or heard Mr. Hersh talking about the issue. How is Mr. Frum coming up with that hypothetical any different from Mr. Giuliani saying that the President couldn't be indicted after shooting Mr. Comey? It’s simple: Giuliani making the hypothetical about Trump shooting Comey was as wrong as Frump making a hypothetical that Trump beat his wife. Your defending it is the only thing I’m questioning at this point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on Jun 7, 2018 5:19:04 GMT -6
Oh, for Fuck's Sake. Mr. Frum didn't lie. He came up with a hypothetical situation. He did not state as fact that President Trump had ever laid a hand on the First Lady. I theorized that Mr. Frum might have read the memoir or heard Mr. Hersh talking about the issue. How is Mr. Frum coming up with that hypothetical any different from Mr. Giuliani saying that the President couldn't be indicted after shooting Mr. Comey? It’s simple: Giuliani making the hypothetical about Trump shooting Comey was as wrong as Frump making a hypothetical that Trump beat his wife. Your defending it is the only thing I’m questioning at this point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk How is Mr. Giuliani's hypothetical wrong? There have been many other times that the example of a President shooting someone has been discussed when talking about whether a President could be indicted. The issue I have is calling a hypothetical a "lie". |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 7, 2018 5:19:29 GMT -6
So, what’s up Boots? Long time, no talk; interested in where your heads at on all these recent developments.
Is Trump in trouble? How about Comey? Mueller? Think this thing’ll wrap up by the end of the summer? Chances that another SC will immediately be enacted, once Muellers findings are announced?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 7, 2018 5:27:25 GMT -6
It’s simple: Giuliani making the hypothetical about Trump shooting Comey was as wrong as Frump making a hypothetical that Trump beat his wife. Your defending it is the only thing I’m questioning at this point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk How is Mr. Giuliani's hypothetical wrong? There have been many other times that the example of a President shooting someone has been discussed when talking about whether a President could be indicted. The issue I have is calling a hypothetical a "lie". It’s not wrong...it’s classless and baseless and furthers the problem we have as a society today. It IS the problem. I think the same about Giuliani’s statement....and his statement about KJU begging Trump to not cancel the summit. Even if true, no need to say it to the press. I do think Frump was trying to insinuate Trump beat his wife, because the angry need no more than speculation, and he was feeding off that. On that level, yes. It was a lie. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on Jun 7, 2018 5:48:22 GMT -6
How is Mr. Giuliani's hypothetical wrong? There have been many other times that the example of a President shooting someone has been discussed when talking about whether a President could be indicted. The issue I have is calling a hypothetical a "lie". It’s not wrong... it’s classless and baseless and furthers the problem we have as a society today. It IS the problem. I think the same about Giuliani’s statement....and his statement about KJU begging Trump to not cancel the summit. Even if true, no need to say it to the press. I do think Frump was trying to insinuate Trump beat his wife, because the angry need no more than speculation, and he was feeding off that. On that level, yes. It was a lie. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1. You just described this board. This board is a perfect example of "if you don't agree with me on everything politically you are my enemy". I don't agree with much of what you or others post. That does not make you my enemy. I have a deal for you: I agree that being classless and baseless is a huge problem we have as a society. What say we try to lead by example here and not be so strident? It would be nice to have a place to actually discuss politics, etc., and not see people insulted for their opinions. To not see an endless stream of tweets from God knows who posted as fact. 2. There is no proof of that other than your opinion. I think Scott Pruitt should be fired. I am assuming you don't and my opinion doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 7, 2018 6:13:28 GMT -6
It’s not wrong... it’s classless and baseless and furthers the problem we have as a society today. It IS the problem. I think the same about Giuliani’s statement....and his statement about KJU begging Trump to not cancel the summit. Even if true, no need to say it to the press. I do think Frump was trying to insinuate Trump beat his wife, because the angry need no more than speculation, and he was feeding off that. On that level, yes. It was a lie. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1. You just described this board. This board is a perfect example of "if you don't agree with me on everything politically you are my enemy". I don't agree with much of what you or others post. That does not make you my enemy. I have a deal for you: I agree that being classless and baseless is a huge problem we have as a society. What say we try to lead by example here and not be so strident? It would be nice to have a place to actually discuss politics, etc., and not see people insulted for their opinions. To not see an endless stream of tweets from God knows who posted as fact. 2. There is no proof of that other than your opinion. I think Scott Pruitt should be fired. I am assuming you don't and my opinion doesn't matter. !. I never called you my enemy. I didnt insult you for your opinion. You've already attacked the board once, and I told you to move on if you didn't like it. I try to be as welcoming as possible (to everyone), and I do accept your deal. Show me where I attacked you or called you my enemy (explicitly or implicitly), and I will address it honestly. 2. Lots of assumptions and I've never said your opinion doesn't matter. Point out where I said that or implied that. How did the topic change to Pruitt anyway? I also want a board where we can discuss openly without constant arguing. That will take some work from your side too, but I’m willing to put in the work on my end. There will always be some arguing and trolling, so expect that. |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on Jun 7, 2018 7:28:48 GMT -6
1. You just described this board. This board is a perfect example of "if you don't agree with me on everything politically you are my enemy". I don't agree with much of what you or others post. That does not make you my enemy. I have a deal for you: I agree that being classless and baseless is a huge problem we have as a society. What say we try to lead by example here and not be so strident? It would be nice to have a place to actually discuss politics, etc., and not see people insulted for their opinions. To not see an endless stream of tweets from God knows who posted as fact. 2. There is no proof of that other than your opinion. I think Scott Pruitt should be fired. I am assuming you don't and my opinion doesn't matter. !. I never called you my enemy. I didnt insult you for your opinion. You've already attacked the board once, and I told you to move on if you didn't like it. I try to be as welcoming as possible (to everyone), and I do accept your deal. Show me where I attacked you or called you my enemy (explicitly or implicitly), and I will address it honestly. 2. Lots of assumptions and I've never said your opinion doesn't matter. Point out where I said that or implied that. How did the topic change to Pruitt anyway? I also want a board where we can discuss openly without constant arguing. That will take some work from your side too, but I’m willing to put in the work on my end. There will always be some arguing and trolling, so expect that. It's early and my coffee hasn't kicked in: I didn't mean to say that you had called me your enemy. I mean that both parties do that to those who don't agree with them. You also have never said that my opinion didn't matter. I said that about myself. I apologize for giving that impression. As far as Mr. Pruitt I was trying to use him, poorly and unstated, as a hypothetical. When I said that my opinion didn't matter I meant that it would have no effect on Mr. Pruitt's status. Mr. Frum used a hypothetical. Not one that I would have used but a hypothetical none the less. I don't understand how a hypothetical can be a lie. A hypothetical can be absurd or offensive but I don't think it can be called a lie. I am realistic as to what this board is. It is my opinion that it is a board that consists of mainly Trump Supporters. Would you agree with that? Those of us who are critical of the President are considered, in my reading of your post, as being the other "side". With all due respect, I don't think I have a side. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties are disgusting to me. I have never cast a vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate and I sure as hell don't see anyone on the horizon who I could support. I realize there are going to be arguments and trolling. It is just my opinion that there is way too much trolling on this board. BTW, thanks for getting this board up and running. I may have criticisms of it but I am glad it is here. |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 7, 2018 9:19:33 GMT -6
!. I never called you my enemy. I didnt insult you for your opinion. You've already attacked the board once, and I told you to move on if you didn't like it. I try to be as welcoming as possible (to everyone), and I do accept your deal. Show me where I attacked you or called you my enemy (explicitly or implicitly), and I will address it honestly. 2. Lots of assumptions and I've never said your opinion doesn't matter. Point out where I said that or implied that. How did the topic change to Pruitt anyway? I also want a board where we can discuss openly without constant arguing. That will take some work from your side too, but I’m willing to put in the work on my end. There will always be some arguing and trolling, so expect that. It's early and my coffee hasn't kicked in: I didn't mean to say that you had called me your enemy. I mean that both parties do that to those who don't agree with them. You also have never said that my opinion didn't matter. I said that about myself. I apologize for giving that impression. As far as Mr. Pruitt I was trying to use him, poorly and unstated, as a hypothetical. When I said that my opinion didn't matter I meant that it would have no effect on Mr. Pruitt's status. Mr. Frum used a hypothetical. Not one that I would have used but a hypothetical none the less. I don't understand how a hypothetical can be a lie. A hypothetical can be absurd or offensive but I don't think it can be called a lie. I am realistic as to what this board is. It is my opinion that it is a board that consists of mainly Trump Supporters. Would you agree with that? Those of us who are critical of the President are considered, in my reading of your post, as being the other "side". With all due respect, I don't think I have a side. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties are disgusting to me. I have never cast a vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate and I sure as hell don't see anyone on the horizon who I could support. I realize there are going to be arguments and trolling. It is just my opinion that there is way too much trolling on this board. BTW, thanks for getting this board up and running. I may have criticisms of it but I am glad it is here. 1. First and foremost, really appreciate the post and thoughts. You are as welcome here as anyone else, and that goes for everyone. I do state "sides" and by that I guess I mean pro-Trump and anti-Trump, as those seem to be the prevailing differentiations of posters here. There just aren't enough liberals or progressives here to make it any more broad. Honestly, I wish we had more liberals and moderates, and am trying to make this place as accommodating as possible to attract them. We need that diversity of thought and opinion to make this place work. And, I think it's possible. You are absolutely right that this place is 80% Trump supporters, at the moment. I am also in that category, though I consider myself more of an independent American than a Pub or Trump supporter. Trump just happens to be the person currently pushing the closest to my ideologies, policy wise, so I am currently a Trump supporter. Regardless, criticism of Trump is considered, and even encouraged, as far as I'm concerned. If you (or anyone) ever see me get too riled up and not following that statement, please let me know. My beliefs are strong, but I still want to at least ensure the opposing view point is considered, and not outright ignored or laughed at (provided its a legit opinion and not an obvious troll). But, that's more for myself. Others are gonna do what they're gonna do, and I cant nor do I want to control that. I do agree there is a lot of trolling here, wished it was less, dont know what to do about it honestly. So, I work with it for now, and hope it works itself out as the board grows and we get a more broad poster base. I encourage anyone to invite their friends of any political ideology, as this board is not tied to OU or OK or Pub or Dem. Its open to everyone. Again, really appreciate your comment and angle. Oh, and both parties are disgusting to me as well. We agree on that basic fact, 100%. 2. I really do think Frump was trying to piggyback on the others who were saying Trump beat his wife, and stir up trouble. I dont think it was an honest statement, with no intent to hurt. He meant to be divisive and hurt. And, even if he didnt, many did. The hate for Trump is so strong that they will say he beats his wife without a second thought. They'd never say that to anyone in person because they know how serious a charge that is. But, they'll level it against the POTUS from behind a keyboard, because they know the worst ramifications are getting flamed on twitter. In person though, level baseless accusations long enough, and you'll get laid out. Thats why folks dont run around doing it in person. Now, I may be wrong about Frump because I dont know him from a hill of beans, but I know most who either said the same thing or retweeted it did it out of a position of hate. |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 7, 2018 11:20:00 GMT -6
|
|
