• Did Trump write to New York Magazine in 1992 pretending to be his own secretary?

  • Post all funny and entertaining images in here. Please no nudity, porn, or anything NSFW!
Post all funny and entertaining images in here. Please no nudity, porn, or anything NSFW!
 #81214  by kocher
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:36 pm
BDR529 wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:56 am
Tim_Kerr wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:45 am

Image
It sure is...his ass will be in the ringer whenever all the shit hits the fan over the Uranium One deal. Dems bye-bye-O. :lol:
You mean primarily unsubstantiated claims revolving around a deal that wasn't within Clinton's power to approve or veto to begin with? Of course a nonpartisan authority wouldn't care about her involvement in it :lol:
 #81219  by BDR529
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:08 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:36 pm

You mean primarily unsubstantiated claims revolving around a deal that wasn't within Clinton's power to approve or veto to begin with? Of course a nonpartisan authority wouldn't care about her involvement in it :lol:
Hearing the word "nonpartisan" from someone on the left is hilarious. No, she wasn't the only one on the panel when it was approved (Holder and several other high ranking Obama cabinet members were too)...so there's plenty of Obama people that let it happen. But the main point though being Clinton and her sham charity The Clinton Foundation benefited from the slush payments from the Russian oligarchs that they set it up with. Oh, and by the way she was SECRETARY OF STATE when it went down, lets not forget that little tidbit.

Stay with me now...

Mueller though was head of the FBI who had already alerted senior Obama officials about corruption among the Russian players in the deal (Rosatom - the Russian government's nuclear company). As head of the FBI Mueller had to have known all of this and about the kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation. Never mind the fact that he was picked as the SC by Rod Rosenstein (another high ranking FBI head who was present when the deal went down too). And finally his close relationship with Comey...who is at the center of this by leaking sensitive documents to the NYTimes to bring forth a special council appointed by who? Rosenstein. And low and behold...it's Mueller. The dominos are tumbling...even the Washington Post and other hard left entities are pushing it now. It's going to be fun to watch this house of cards fall.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-robert-muel ... al-688548 - A nice little article in Newsweek (a mostly liberal publication) that lays it out pretty well. You do read liddle snowflake don't you? Or do you get all your news from MSNBC?
JohnnyP liked this
 #81228  by JenkemBag
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:24 pm
PepperPeanut wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:14 pm
Image

Carolin Gallego allegedly wrote into New York magazine in 1992 to defend her boss, Donald Trump. The issue with this, like many other instances like it, is that this woman doesn't appear to have ever worked for him, or even existed.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/10/ ... go-letter/

And you have to admit, for a broad she sounds an awful lot like Trump himself.
PP and I can agree on one thing. Trump is a cuck.
 #81232  by kocher
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:08 pm
BDR529 wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:08 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:36 pm

You mean primarily unsubstantiated claims revolving around a deal that wasn't within Clinton's power to approve or veto to begin with? Of course a nonpartisan authority wouldn't care about her involvement in it :lol:
Hearing the word "nonpartisan" from someone on the left is hilarious. No, she wasn't the only one on the panel when it was approved (Holder and several other high ranking Obama cabinet members were too)...so there's plenty of Obama people that let it happen. But the main point though being Clinton and her sham charity The Clinton Foundation benefited from the slush payments from the Russian oligarchs that they set it up with. Oh, and by the way she was SECRETARY OF STATE when it went down, lets not forget that little tidbit.

Stay with me now...

Mueller though was head of the FBI who had already alerted senior Obama officials about corruption among the Russian players in the deal (Rosatom - the Russian government's nuclear company).
The resurgence of this story's value is whether or not the FBI corresponded their active investigation to CFIUS, which that Newsweek article does not corroborate, nor does the right-leaning TheHill, who initially resparked interest in the story. But good, I'm glad we can agree Clinton's involvement in the deal was minimal and that the transactions in question were closer to 1M than 145M.
 #81235  by BDR529
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:40 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:08 pm
The resurgence of this story's value is whether or not the FBI corresponded their active investigation to CFIUS, which that Newsweek article does not corroborate, nor does the right-leaning TheHill, who initially resparked interest in the story. But good, I'm glad we can agree Clinton's involvement in the deal was minimal and that the transactions in question were closer to 1M than 145M.
Sadly, I don't think we can agree on that. For one thing, the amount in question (what was funneled into the Clinton Foundation) is somewhere closer to $100M. And there's nothing minimal about a sitting Secretary of State orchestrating a uranium deal with shady Russian oligarchs to enrich herself and her "foundation" at the expense of her country. Never mind the other smoke-and-mirror shell game that's going on with Comey/Rosenstein/Mueller. They're already calling for a special prosecutor to look into it. Mueller may indict some of the low hanging fruit from Trump's campaign (read: Manafort and Michael Flynn) but I think it's entirely possible that he finds himself fending off shrapnel from this shady uranium deal...and the "collusion" that landed him as a special prosecutor concerning his buddies Comey and Rosenstein.
JohnnyP liked this
 #81246  by kocher
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:51 pm
BDR529 wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:40 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:08 pm
The resurgence of this story's value is whether or not the FBI corresponded their active investigation to CFIUS, which that Newsweek article does not corroborate, nor does the right-leaning TheHill, who initially resparked interest in the story. But good, I'm glad we can agree Clinton's involvement in the deal was minimal and that the transactions in question were closer to 1M than 145M.
Sadly, I don't think we can agree on that. For one thing, the amount in question (what was funneled into the Clinton Foundation) is somewhere closer to $100M. And there's nothing minimal about a sitting Secretary of State orchestrating a uranium deal with shady Russian oligarchs to enrich herself and her "foundation" at the expense of her country. Never mind the other smoke-and-mirror shell game that's going on with Comey/Rosenstein/Mueller. They're already calling for a special prosecutor to look into it. Mueller may indict some of the low hanging fruit from Trump's campaign (read: Manafort and Michael Flynn) but I think it's entirely possible that he finds himself fending off shrapnel from this shady uranium deal...and the "collusion" that landed him as a special prosecutor concerning his buddies Comey and Rosenstein.
The bulk some of the 145M figure was donated by Frank Giustra at 131M, but this was done after he severed ties with Uranium One, 3 years before the deal and 1.5 years before Clinton was SoS. Mind you, I don't think Clinton should be exonerated from investigation or prosecution. This still leaves the ambiguous dealings of Ian Telfer that donated 1M to the Clinton foundation allegedly around the time of the deal, which was not disclosed by the Clinton foundation. I think moderate centrists like Clinton need to be tied up and have their thighs whipped, but the details surrounding the publicity of a rather mild in nature deal to stoke the flames for another witch hunt is self-destructive, and your ramblings of Mueller is gay.
 #81250  by BDR529
 Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:11 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:51 pm


The bulk some of the 145M figure was donated by Frank Giustra at 131M, but this was done after he severed ties with Uranium One, 3 years before the deal and 1.5 years before Clinton was SoS. Mind you, I don't think Clinton should be exonerated from investigation or prosecution. This still leaves the ambiguous dealings of Ian Telfer that donated 1M to the Clinton foundation allegedly around the time of the deal, which was not disclosed by the Clinton foundation. I think moderate centrists like Clinton need to be tied up and have their thighs whipped, but the details surrounding the publicity of a rather mild in nature deal to stoke the flames for another witch hunt is self-destructive, and your ramblings of Mueller is gay.
Funny how when the left wants to try and shed light on something it's completely warranted to "get to the bottom" of things. But as soon as it looks like the right might want to see what kind of improprieties were going on with the left, it's just another "witch hunt". Well, there's no bigger witch hunt than this phony Russian collusion bullshit that every left wing twit has been screaming since Trump took office. The real irony is that all these collusion accusations from the left are proving now to be more applicable to their own side. Call it what you will, but Mueller is going to be right in the middle of it along with a few more of Obama's henchmen. Just remember that it was the left that stirred the hornet's nest.