If you were right, Manafort and Flynn wouldn't be trying to duck prison time - reality is not on your side on this one.I am right. That's what pisses you off.
See John Edwards
The big takeaway from all this is that Trump himself will now be subpoenaed in the Stormy Daniels civil case, and if he doesn't tell the truth during that deposition, he can change his name to Bill Clinton. He's toast.
So what's your point? Two wrongs make a right? Or is this a whataboutism thing?
If you were right, Manafort and Flynn wouldn't be trying to duck prison time - reality is not on your side on this one.
Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Trump has yet to be charged with anything and most of the convictions are for thing completely unrelated to the campaign except for where cohen plead guilty to making an illegal campaign donation which is a fine nothing more.
Your claim is that Mueller hasn't found anything. Manafort is looking at prison time. Cohen is threatening to expose Trump. If you were right, none of this would be happenin'.How does that make me wrong?
It is the Department of Justice's policy not to indict a sitting president. Your statement is rendered meaningless due to that fact.
I didn't "claim" anything. I posted established facts, none of which are disputed.You didn't need a quality source for YOUR claim, did you?
The are charges awaiting Mr. trump from the State of NY. They have no issues with indicting a President, sitting or not.
That is currently incorrect. The issue against the Trump Foundation is a civil matter right now, not a criminal one. However, they do want to talk to Michael Cohen and the change from a civil to a criminal trail is not out of the question.
It is the Department of Justice's policy not to indict a sitting president. Your statement is rendered meaningless due to that fact.
Your claim is that Mueller hasn't found anything. Manafort is looking at prison time. Cohen is threatening to expose Trump. If you were right, none of this would be happenin'.
This isn't complicated, apdst. Reality just isn't on your side here.
Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Your claim is that Mueller hasn't found anything. Manafort is looking at prison time. Cohen is threatening to expose Trump. If you were right, none of this would be happenin'.
This isn't complicated, apdst. Reality just isn't on your side here.
Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Not at all.
No evidence has been submitted to congress or any other court of law with trumps name on it.
For impeachment hearings their must be evidence that the president has committed some kind of a crime.
Yet for the past 2 years and all of the stomping of feet that you guys have done nothing has been submitted
that he has done anything.
Congress cannot impeach him without evidence of a crime.
13 year old tax evasion, that they already knew about and decided not to persue? Yeah, that's huge...lol
13 year old tax evasion, that they already knew about and decided not to persue? Yeah, that's huge...lol
That's an uneducated claim, even by the standards some of your past posts have set. Manafort was found guilty on 8 charges which net him up to 80 years in prison. He's not a young man, and even a young man wouldn't survive an 80 year prison sentence. Continuing to claim Mueller has nothing is pretty desperate on your end at this point.
As I said, never give up apdst, even when reality doesn't agree with you. Do you think Manafort is winning?
:lol:
I realize you think you're speaking with authority, but you're not. You're merely bloviating what they're telling you on TV.
I'm going to need a source for that claim.
IMHO, Mitch McConnel will block any and all impeachment hearings until the 2020 election, for the same reason that he blocked Merrick Garland.. and if the American people's voices are heard, and we elect this dumbass again, then really, what do we deserve?
What does tax evasion from 2005 have to do with "Russian collusion"?
Is that the only thing he was found guilty of? Apdst, quick question - if a cop pulls you over for drinking and driving, and then finds a bunch of stolen modems in your trunk, do you get to tell him that you stole those last month and they have nothing?
Again, keep fighting that truth buddy.
:lol:
He wasn't even charged with "Russian collusiin"...lol
Ok tin foil hat man...here are your links.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...lied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...lied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526
As you can see from both articles. Fusion GPS worked on providing information to the defense team in the Prevezon Case. Veselnitskaya received access to the report because she was part that defense team not because she worked with or for or had any other connection with Fusion GPS.
The articles also clearly indicate that she was in the direct employ of Yuri Chaika and that she was taking the meeting in Trump Tower not as private attorney but as employ and informant of Yuri Chaika. So your whole premise is just complete ****.
Aside from business dealings with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Glenn Simpson was asked if he met with her in person "on other occasions besides court hearings."
"I think I attended a couple client dinners, and I think that's about it," Simpson responded.
"Do you recall when and where those would have been?" the committee staff attorney asked him.
"I recall some of the when and the where," Simpson responded. "There were a couple of dinners in New York and a couple of dinners in D.C. I don't remember when they started. I think probably 2015. And there was some in 2016 in both cities."
"Were any in June 2016?" the attorney asked.
"Yes, two," Simpson replied.
"Were those in New York or in D.C.?"
"I believe that one was in New York and one was in D.C.," Simpson said.
"Do you recall the specific date of either?" the attorney asked.
"I didn't until we tried to piece these things together, but June 8th, I think, was the dinner in New York, and I think the 10th was the dinner in D.C., something like that," Simpson said.
"And what were the purposes of these dinners?" the lawyer asked Simpson.
"Well, the first one was just an obligatory client dinner which, you know, when you work on a legal case you get invited to dinner with the clients. The one in D.C. was more of a social thing. It wasn't -- she was at it, but it wasn't really about the case. It was just a bunch of Mark Cymrot's friends." (Cymrot is a partner at Baker Hostetler, which did business with Fusion GPS.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?