Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/17/alan-dershowitz-obama-sought-fbi-probe-behalf-geor/

In an interview with Breitbart News, Mr. Dershowitz said that President Trump’s leaning on the Justice Department might be imprudent or crude, but it both passes constitutional muster and is very far from unprecedented.

“There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that,” the emeritus professor and longtime liberal champion said in the interview, which first aired on SiriusXM.

“I have some information … about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his,” he added without specifying who the target was.

 

 

Yeahbut - Impeach the bad orange man......

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/dershowitz-cites-obama-soros-conspiracy-to-justify-trump-doj-meddling-2020-2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 12:38 PM, Howe said:

Those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome choose to believe confirmed liars such as James Clapper, John Brennan and Fake News outlets like New York Times, USA Today, NBC and Time.

Those with common sense are more inclined to believe an outlet with a 100% accuracy rate who has never been proven wrong.

*Wikileaks Video *

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-offered-assange-pardon-covered-171516819.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-offered-pardon-assange-denied-russia-leak-court-185559180.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, foxbat said:

Democrats have been humiliated with their failed impeachment and their super hero Robert Mueller. Democrats have returned to their "snuggy" blanket of Russia collusion.  Hilarious.

383f4a26e3.jpg

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Howe said:

Democrats have been humiliated with their failed impeachment and their super hero Robert Mueller. Democrats have returned to their "snuggy" blanket of Russia collusion.  Hilarious.

383f4a26e3.jpg

I'm just "believing" the outlet that you pointed out ... or more precisely, its founder.  After all, you stated that it has 100% accuracy rate and hasn't been proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm just "believing" the outlet that you pointed out ... or more precisely, its founder.  After all, you stated that it has 100% accuracy rate and hasn't been proven wrong.

Assange made no statement in the Daily Beast article. More Fake News. 

The article states Rohrabacher made the offer to pardon Assange a year after the DNC e-mails were published by Wikileaks. Rohrabacher has denied making any such offer. The article also states Rohrabacher was not permitted to speak directly to Trump by Cheif of Staff John Kelly who was appointed July 28, 2017

Assange made these statements on January 28, 2017 which is 6 months prior to the allegations in the Daily Beast article.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howe said:

Assange made no statement in the Daily Beast article. More Fake News. 

The article states Rohrabacher made the offer to pardon Assange a year after the DNC e-mails were published by Wikileaks. Rohrabacher has denied making any such offer. The article also states Rohrabacher was not permitted to speak directly to Trump by Cheif of Staff John Kelly who was appointed July 28, 2017

Assange made these statements on January 28, 2017 which is 6 months prior to the allegations in the Daily Beast article.

 

Looks like we'll get to see what happens when con men con each other since these statements were made today.  Of course, Assange and his lawyers could well be lying today, but then that would make the claim about 100% accuracy questionable ... of course, if the statements today aren't lies, then that makes the previous ones lies.  Either way, something's got to give.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Looks like we'll get to see what happens when con men con each other since these statements were made today.  Of course, Assange and his lawyers could well be lying today, but then that would make the claim about 100% accuracy questionable ... of course, if the statements today aren't lies, then that makes the previous ones lies.  Either way, something's got to give.  

Assange made no statements quoted in the article. Perhaps his lawyer is simply a libtard.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2020 at 9:02 PM, Howe said:

Assange made no statements quoted in the article. Perhaps his lawyer is simply a libtard.

Just curious how these geniuses keep hiring all of the "libtards?"   I mean Trump's hired a bunch of them like Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, Sessions, McMaster, Tillerson, Bannon, Priebus, Scaramuchi, Flynn ... and that's just some of the ones that were hired then fired ... doesn't include the ones that "fell on their swords" like Spicer, Price, Manigault-Newman, Cohn, Cobb, Pruitt, Zinke, Nielsen, Sanders ... you know "all the best people."  Guess Assange got too close and has his "libtard radar" blinded as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, foxbat said:

Just curious how these geniuses keep hiring all of the "libtards?"  

Normal Democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists are not libtards. A libtard is typically a perfectly intelligent individual who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. They refuse to apply common sense to mainstream media narratives and are easily manipulated, gullible fools. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Howe said:

Normal Democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists are not libtards. A libtard is typically a perfectly intelligent individual who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. They refuse to apply common sense to mainstream media narratives and are easily manipulated, gullible fools. 

So Assange hired a "libtard?"  Now whose suffering from a syndrome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, foxbat said:

So Assange hired a "libtard?"  Now whose suffering from a syndrome?

Perhaps the lawyer for Assange never even made such statements. The article posted was from The Daily Beast. Chelsea Clinton is on the Board of Directors.

After nearly three years of ridiculous hype and fake news plus the $30,000,000 Mueller Dossier, an article from the Daily Beast is the best you can do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Howe said:

Perhaps the lawyer for Assange never even made such statements. The article posted was from The Daily Beast. Chelsea Clinton is on the Board of Directors.

After nearly three years of ridiculous hype and fake news plus the $30,000,000 Mueller Dossier, an article from the Daily Beast is the best you can do?

Can you disprove it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Howe said:

Perhaps the lawyer for Assange never even made such statements. The article posted was from The Daily Beast. Chelsea Clinton is on the Board of Directors.

After nearly three years of ridiculous hype and fake news plus the $30,000,000 Mueller Dossier, an article from the Daily Beast is the best you can do?

AFP was the link right below it, so if you don't care for the Daily Beast it was reported by other outlets too ... including FoxNews

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/19/uk/assange-trump-pardon-rohrabacher-us-gbr-intl/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/19/white-house-denies-julian-assanges-pardon-claim-heres-what-we-know-about-it/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-20/why-would-trump-offer-a-pardon-to-julian-assange - Note that this opinion takes a skeptical point that Assange and his lawyer are telling the truth in the latest news ... which is exactly what I pointed out when I questioned you 100% claim of accuracy.  If he's lying now, then the claim of 100% accuracy goes out the window.  If he was lying back then, then again the 100% accuracy claim goes out the window.  Furthermore, Rohrbacher claims that an offer of pardon or "witness cooperation" came in the form of Assange had to PROVE his statements about Russia not being involved by producing hard drives or other material ... which Assange never did.  So even Rohrbacher wasn't going to take Assange at his word.

FTO: For now, it looks like Assange’s British legal team is going with the theory that its client’s prosecution is the result of a spurned offer for a pardon. If that’s true, however, it also means that Assange didn’t believe what he was telling the world for most of 2016. Is that an argument his lawyers really want to make?

https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-assange-pardon-russia-dnc-email-leak

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51566470 - This one claims that Rohrbacher says Trump didn't know about his dealings with Assange.  Again, the point being made is that you 100% accuracy claim on Wikileaks and also posted Assange in his own words.  Rohrbacher says Assange and his lawyer are lying.  Again, he's either lying now, which makes the 100% claim questionable or he was lying then ... which again makes the 100% accuracy claim questionable.

So here are some articles that are in line with your skepticism.  I'll give that I'm skeptical about what Assange is saying right now as well.  The quickest way to fight extradition is to claim political influence or potential political retribution.  What better way to make that question come up than to claim the President or his surrogates offered a pardon and now he didn't get one.  If the President doesn't give him one, it looks suspicious and, even as a last-ditch attempt to avoid extradition, provides doubt.  On the other hand, if Trump pardons him, then extradition doesn't matter at that point.  this ties directly into my statement about con men conning each other.  At the same time, again, if Assange is lying now, then the 100% accuracy claim loses weight ... if he's not lying now, then the statements before are lies which again make a 100% accuracy claim take a hit.  BTW, I think what folks will find pretty quickly at this point is that Assange really isn't worried at this point about himself or Wikileaks being taken as 100% accurate or even credible.  What he's interested in is protecting his own behind ... which you can't really fault him for, but you also can't ascribe selflessness to him when the current actions have more of a selfish approach.

On 2/20/2020 at 10:44 PM, Howe said:

See the source image

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/former-congressman-confirms-he-offered-to-broker-pardon-for-assange/

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/483833-rohrabacher-tells-yahoo-he-discussed-pardon-with-assange-for-proof

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-appeals-court-revives-seth-rich-family-lawsuit-against-fox-news

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I noticed you disappeared from this forum for over a month on the day Mueller was humiliated on national television during that ridiculous Mueller hearing. You were a staunch supporter of the Mueller Investigation.  You have not posted much during the past six months however, you are passionate in your support of the establishment. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Howe said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I noticed you disappeared from this forum for over a month on the day Mueller was humiliated on national television during that ridiculous Mueller hearing. You were a staunch supporter of the Mueller Investigation.  You have not posted much during the past six months however, you are passionate in your support of the establishment. Good luck.

I didn't post on this part of GID for almost six months and it had nothing to do with Mueller.  I still am not likely to post much here given that it's looking like little has changed in approach.  My current posts aren't really tied to Mueller either.  If you somehow feel that my posts on a football website are tied to Mueller and that my absence was somehow tied to Mueller, then you really aren't tracking me well and overlooking a lot ... likely so since you didn't notice that it was half year and not just a month.

You have a firm belief that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election.  You continually post about 17 agencies while overlooking the fact that the number of agencies doesn't matter ... Trump's own folks said it happened although they now want you to believe that they didn't in a very Withers/Ogilvy approach.   It's a "baby with the bath water approach ... if you don't believe that Russia interfered, then you don't have to even have to consider anything that Mueller looked into.  It's just like this Assange thing ... you are spending so much time trying to pretend that Assange and his lawyers didn't say what they said and spending time going after The Daily Beast, despite the fact that the statements were made in court and not to The Daily Beast among others, as opposed to the realization in seeing the Assange is playing a game ... and may well have been all along.  Also, what's missing in the presentation is that YOU claim everything is fake and then put up a source that you claim is 100% accurate which isn't.

As for "the establishment" in case you haven't noticed, said "establishment" has just shifted in whose running it.  If you really believe that Trump is "anti-establishment" then you're missing the long-con.  Trump is in it for Trump ... he's just as much a part of "the establishment" as anyone else he rails against.  Claiming Trump is anti-establishment is like claiming BYU under Detmer's passing time isn't football because, unlike Oklahoma under Switzer run-only regime, BYU threw the ball all the time instead of running it all the time.  Two sides of the same coin.  Just like claiming that the Cowboys are America's Team and that the Raiders played "assassin ball" back in the days of Lester Hayes.  Again, two teams doing the same thing, just taking different routes to get there ... each with their own skeletons and dirty tricks playing out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howe said:

hillary-seth-rich-wikileaks_orig.jpg

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-appeals-court-revives-seth-rich-family-lawsuit-against-fox-news

FTA: Seth Rich was murdered the morning of July 10, 2016, in what authorities say was a botched robbery. Conspiracy theorists seized upon Rich’s murder and spread the baseless rumor that he was the source of the stolen DNC emails obtained by Wikileaks and that his death was a politically motivated hit job. Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who is now facing extradition to the United States for a host of charges, helped promote the conspiracy theory. The government concluded, however, that the DNC emails were stolen by Russian military intelligence, and there’s no credible evidence pointing to Rich’s involvement.

Rich’s parents, Joel and Mary, filed their lawsuit against Fox News in the Southern District of New York in March 2018, alleging employees of Fox News swept them up in a deceitful scheme to promote the conspiracy theory, and that Fox News let it happen. The lawsuit alleged Fox News reporter Malia Zimmerman and Fox News guest Ed Butowsky “induced” Rich’s parents to hire investigator Rod Wheeler to help “solve” their son’s murder, and that the three colluded “to pursue and develop a fiction” that painted Rich as the DNC leaker and as “a criminal and a traitor.”

“Joel and Mary Rich, grieving parents of a murdered child, seek justice for having become collateral damage in a political war to which they are innocent bystanders,” Rich’s lawyers told the court last year. “They seek to help prevent similar malicious and reckless conduct to protect future innocent victims from similarly becoming political fodder.”

...

Calabresi noted Fox News published an article in 2017 titled Slain DNC Staffer Had Contact with WikiLeaks Say Multiple Sources which promoted baseless claims that Seth Rich was involved in stealing the DNC emails. Fox News later retracted the piece.

“Fox News guests, however, continued to reference the retracted article for months,” Calebresi said today. “And to this day, Fox News makes available online at least two videos repeating, almost verbatim, the content of the Zimmerman story.”

Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity heavily promoted the conspiracy theory, and a seven-minute segment between Wheeler and Hannity from May 2017 is still on the Fox News website. The interview took place after the Rich family repeatedly disavowed the conspiracy theory and Wheeler.

“We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers,” the Rich family said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous three video's show the Director of the FBI admitting the agency never received access to the DNC servers or John Podesta's e-mails to conduct forensic analysis. The Director's for the NSA and CIA admit they never even requested access to the DNC servers to conduct forensic analysis.

DNI Director James Clapper states the analysis by the FBI, NSA and CIA was conducted by "hand picked" seasoned experts.🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...