Tape may exist. No happy endings bro.
Not even in Asian massage parlors.
2 Likes
The dossier did serve as an excuse for the Obama administration to get a FISA warrant and sirveil Trump and CO. Why would they hire Steele and not release whatever he found? The DNC and Hillary hired Steele and paid him about $12 million.
What did they get for their $12 million?
3 Likes
It’s the entire justification for the witch hunt that is currently underway. I’m enjoying the show. Nothing surprising about any of this.
1 Like
False accusations are false accusations. The back peddling is fun to watch though.
I don’t know about that… I mean, this whole “but russia” thing appears to be burning the “wrong” people at the moment.
They’ve been investigating the trump team (and/or trump himself, I can’t keep track anymore) for what, a year now… And not that much to do about it… But we’re getting anti clinton and dnc leaks?
But either way, this whole bit seems like a fairly big nothing burger compared to the uranium issues, which no one really seems to care about. Maybe I’m wrong.
1 Like
Thats not true…you obviously havent been to Vegas handys with luv.
Dig yur conspiracy theroies…
Obama masterminds universal hc
Trump didnt expect to win it was a rouge to start a more extreme cable news network…im with ya…You a sativa guy or indica?
The pee tape conspiracy makes sense… Trump cares about image over everything. Its what drives him… KGB busts him getting golden shower or paying hooks to pee on obamas bed. This was way b4 he ran…makes sense. Why else would putin endorse him so much… Or spend all that time and effort on hacks…or $$ on facebook…leverage bruh…he had juuuge leverage…putin wants his agenda met trumps compromised…banking shit deals ect…pee tape was icing on cake…You show me a rich guy from Manhattan that doesnt like hookers & blow and Ill show u a unicorn
What you mean to say is it “raises a lot of questions.” Look into what begging the question means, and then just use “raise a question” for all of the instances where “begging the question” doesn’t apply.
It means one thing in logic and another in the vernacular
craziness.
3 Likes
Yeah. Trump Jr. Met with Russians under false pretense for 30 minutes. “HIGH TREASON!”
The Dems pay the Russians $12 million for a fake story to get a FISA warrant and surveil a candidate/president elect. Then they unmask all the names and distribute the information to everyone to encourage leaks. “No story here”.
2 Likes
I don’t even know what to think anymore.
I mean… it is treason though. If the meeting was with a foreign leader with the express purpose of attaching a fellow citizen using their intelligence… That would be treason.
They just need to prove it. I don’t know that a tweet is proof, enough for a treason charge though.
(Not to take away from your other point)
1 Like
As the email chain he himself released proves, he did not meet them under “false pretenses”–he met them with the explicit intent to garner Russia-provided oppo intel, which is a financial-contribution crime at best, collusion at worst. As I pointed out above, even if the entire thing was a set-up (which seems highly unlikely, given that the coordinating emails were between Jr. and long-time Trump enthusiasts), it does not impact the fact of Jr’s mens rea.
Fake? My understanding is significant portions of the dossier have been corroborated, and very little has been found to be false. (Much remains that has been neither corroborated nor discredited.)
Let us also remember, the dossier started as a GOP oppo-research project.
Trump was the subject of a FISA warrant? Link please.
If their goal was to discredit Trump, why not simply leak the report itself? Would have made for a devastating ‘October surprise.’
1 Like
Nobody thought Trump was going to win. Nobody.
Steele wasn’t brought in until after the dems started paying. Per links above.
A liberal Harvard law professor weighed in and unless Trump Jr. Commissioned the Russians to do the research and break laws, receiving opposition research from a foreign entity is not a crime. And talking about receiving opposition research certainly isn’t. Unless new information comes out about the meeting, it isn’t a crime. It would be the same as of the NYT went to the meeting to get info and publish it. It’s freedom of speech unless you’re the one stealing it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/13/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-jrs-conduct-likely-co/
We know Manafort was surveiled under a FISA warrant while working for the Trump campaign. At the time he had an apartment and office in Trump tower. If you want to say “well they didn’t surveil Trump” just keep carrying that water. Mueller has said the surveillance was to try and find links to the Trump campaign and Russia.
1 Like
You keep saying that. Do you genuinely believe ~63M people voted for a guy they thought had no chance of winning. C’mon man.
This would be an interesting ruling…
I think he’s saying not too many people or metrics had those 63m people voting for him prior to them doing it.
Under no circumstances is that treason
Interesting ruling? How long have you been practimg law?
That’s not quite true. After Comey’s 11th hour ‘we’re looking at HRC’s emails again’ announcement, the polling took a turn. If HRC’s people had this memo idling on the tarmac, they would have deployed it at that time.
True, but what impact is this fact supposed to have?
Yes, Dershowitz has been saying this for quite some time. It is my impression that his opinion is not widely shared. Doesn’t make him wrong of course, but it does mean his opinion is just that–his opinion.
There is an enormous difference between surveiling the candidate and surveiling someone associated with the candidate. And if Obama (or whomever you’re positing led this conspiracy) wanted Trump surveiled, why didn’t they simply use the dossier to get the needed warrant?
And unless I’m mis-remembering, the Manafort surveillance did not stem from the Steele dossier. Further, I know of no credible people who think Manafort is some sort of innocent patsy in all this. That man is dirty as all get-out, and is rightfully going to go to jail (unless he cuts a deal).
When did he say that?