Montreal Escorts

The Trump Crime Family

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Forbes has a blog section where they give space to commentators with differing opinions. Under the information regarding the contributor is the caveat "opinions expressed by the Forbes Contributor are their own".

I quickly noticed the words in the section title Mueller’s Grand Narrative Outlined because the writer's candidness is revealing of the nature of this opinion piece.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
Unfortunately that bridge is gone. It crumpled and fell into the Hudson River.

Like so many other things that guy has built, it was erected using inferior quality imported steel from China.
You omitted the fact that the bridge was built with the labor of undocumented immigrants.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Actually, the crumbled bridge was built by Trump over the Moskva River. Just because the evidence has disappeared, doesn't mean it never existed.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
@sambuca - What *isn't* a liberal news outlet to you? (Currently, your only criteria as listed involves CBF, although I am not sure what standard of support for her makes something "liberal".) Or, perhaps more interestingly, do you think there is such a thing as a factual news outlet? (I assume you don't believe in the idea of a neutral one.) Do you believe in actual facts ever being reported or do you simply assume a postmodernist view of the world where there are no facts, only the power to force people to accept your version of events?

You said they probably invented something about it being a crime, I said the logic they are using is laid out in their statement, and you said reading the statement would be getting lost in the weeds. I directed you again to the statement. I don't think there has been any distortion of context. If you want to discuss why you think it isn't a crime, you kind of need to actually address what they said justifies treating it as a crime. For some reason you find this unfair.

You keep mentioning FEC charimen and judges who agree with you and not linking to them. It would be nice if you did. Because I can't tell if you think the crime doesn't exist (you keep claiming there is no crime for this, there is no jail time attached, etc.) or if you think the crime does exist, but Cohen did not violate it, despite his claiming that he did. I have agreed with you that Cohen's guilty plea does not make the implication that Trump is also guilty of the violation a slam dunk.

"Yes, I wrote "The Podesta brothers' ties to Russia and influence peddling should be investigated and it still might be without Mueller." Take this as a throw away comment that doesn't need further debate. I believe the FBI might still be investigating the Clinton Foundation's dealings and Mueller might have handed off some information regarding the Podestas to federal prosecutors. If they are not currently investigating either, fine....so be it."

There is no reason to sift, fragment and quibble with my every sentence and opinion. I'm fairly sure most followers of this thread understand what my views are regardless if they agree with me or not. When two people don't agree, the basic understanding is that they don't look at things the same way.

You have repeated and repeated over and over the point that the SDNY and Cohen have made statements to the court that Cohen violated campaign finance laws at Trump's direction. That is not in dispute. Some legal experts have said they don't believe a crime was committed. If Trump was impeached or indicted on this manner it would have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So some prominent experts, regardless if they are conservatives or not, doubt a crime was committed and the difficulty of proving it.

Former Federal Election Commissioner:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/for...-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley serious crime difficult to prosecute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd-bXc1epUo

As I said, I don't know where the current Clinton investigations stand. Nor do you. It is my opinion the FBI (not the Ken Starr 1990s investigation) currently has not been as aggressive as the Mueller Special Counsel. We'll see.

Turley's opinion similar to above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7kfhPyqloo
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
It's like the comment about the Founders making sure the President can't be indicted. When I pointed out it wasn't true, you just vanished it.

Are you seriously quibbling about this?

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, but some highly regarded legal scholars have been publicly debating whether the Founding Fathers intended that Presidents could only be removed from office by means of impeachment and thereby indictment was not a valid option.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
Then many of us would be in jail for bullying you here. I would imagine Montreal allows conjugal visits.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
In response to Valcazar's question about my earlier comment, "Flynn and Corsi are fighting back at the Special Counsel for overstepping proper prosecutorial boundaries. So we now are hearing about over-aggressive tactics to try to pressure Trump's cohorts to compose dirt on the President. Don't trust Flynn or conservative media. Trust the Federal Judge who has questioned the Flynn indictment".

I might have used too strong a word when I noted Judge Sullivan "questioned" the indictment. He has not thrown out the case or criticized the Special Counsel. Judge Sullivan has asked for exculpatory evidence that should have been already turned over. There's also the long, strange delay in the FBI writing up the Flynn interviews.

Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote:

Judge Sullivan has since made it his practice to begin every case with a Brady order, which reminds prosecutors of their constitutional obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence. On Dec. 12, 2017, days after being assigned the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan issued such an order, instructing Mr. Mueller’s team to turn over “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Had any other judge drawn the case, we likely would never have seen these details of the FBI’s behavior.

It’s clear that something has concerned the judge—who likely sees obvious parallels to the Stevens case. The media was predicting a quick ruling in the Flynn case. Instead, Judge Sullivan issued new orders Wednesday, demanding to see for himself the McCabe memo and the Flynn 302. He also ordered the special counsel to hand over by Friday any other documents relevant to the Flynn-FBI meeting.

Given his history with the FBI, the judge may also have some questions about the curious date on the Flynn 302—Aug. 22, 2017, seven months after the interview. Texts from Mr. Strzok and testimony from Mr. Comey both suggest the 302 was written long before then. Was the 302 edited in the interim? If so, by whom, and at whose direction? FBI officials initially testified to Congress that the agents did not think Mr. Flynn had lied.
 

Carmine Falcone

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2017
707
985
93
That bastion of the liberal media, the radical left wing publication, Forbes (lol) is also in the game...........

My little bit to add to this gang-up: the outlet that has done a lot of initial reporting on the Stormy and McDougal payments has been the Wall Street Journal. It's almost as if journalists (even from newspapers with a conservative editorial board) care more about truth than anything else. What a shocking idea, right?
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
In follow-up to Flynn's plea and ensuing contention on lying to the FBI, the real crime has always seemed to be Flynn and his son's unreported work for the government of Turkey. I'm sure this makes those with TDS bat-shit crazy, but this doesn't necessarily take us to Russia and Trump. Flynn's work for Turkey started long before the Trump campaign.

The Flynn sentencing today and its delay left observers more confused than ever as to what is really going on with the Flynn case. Interestingly, the Judge kind of laughed off the Logan Act when it was brought up.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
No less a constitutional authority than Laurence Tribe is on record that no one, not even the President, is above the law. And when the crimes include tampering with the election and treason, even less so.

Meanwhile, the man who never met a deal he couldn't cave on and an investment he couldn't run into bankruptcy, just caved on The Wall.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
Don't worry the State of New York will be a vigilant pursuer of justice until the end of time or the end of Trump.
Nawww, it's not political.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ans-wide-ranging-investigations-trump-n946706
Political?
Rod Rosenstein is a Republican.
Robert Mueller is a Republican.

There are now seven different jurisdictions conducting 16 investigations of Trump. Political, my sweet Irish ass. It's all about the rule of law, something this low-grade mobster doesn't know shit about.

And the Trump mob yesterday agreed to shut down its phony charity. What kind of scumbag would start a charity for the sole purpose of lining his own pocket? Donald Trump, that's what kind.

The sooner they cart this scumbag off to the hoosegow the better.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
835
2
38
I have been accused of using political labels too much. You are putting people in boxes and thinking every political actor and commentator is exactly in the category you believe 100% of the time. (Jeez, you keep citing commentator David Brooks who declares he's not a conservative.) Yes, that's very convenient for your argument, but not really much of an argument. It completely avoids the discussion.

Why are New York politicians so interested in Trump in the last two years? Could it be that you have to a Liberal with street cred to advance in New York politics? There's no downside for this rhetoric and action for a Democratic politician in New York. The Federal government seems to already be doing quite an investigation.

If you thought beyond your outrage, you would realize we don't want the States pursuing the President of the United States. It's a terrible precedence.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
I have been accused of using political labels too much. You are putting people in boxes and thinking every political actor and commentator is exactly in the category you believe 100% of the time. (Jeez, you keep citing commentator David Brooks who declares he's not a conservative.) Yes, that's very convenient for your argument, but not really much of an argument. It completely avoids the discussion.
And I can say I'm not a leftist. That wouldn't make it true. According to Wikipedia, "David Brooks (born August 11, 1961)[1] is a Canadian-born American conservative political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times." While Wikipedia is not the source of all sources, what they say about Brooks is generally considered opinion.

Why are New York politicians so interested in Trump in the last two years? Could it be that you have to a Liberal with street cred to advance in New York politics? There's no downside for this rhetoric and action for a Democratic politician in New York. The Federal government seems to already be doing quite an investigation.
Yes, the Federal Government is doing quite an investigation, but they are not pursuing his many offenses against the state of New York.[/QUOTE]
The previous NY AG Eric Schneiderman started investigating Trump's crimes in NY in 2013. The $25,000,000 penalty for the Trump University scam came from his work.

If you thought beyond your outrage, you would realize we don't want the States pursuing the President of the United States. It's a terrible precedence.
I assume you mean precedent. Actual, what's a terrible precedent is having a criminal President elected with considerable input from a hostile foreign power.
 
Toronto Escorts