• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Really? So you think when an email is sent that it only goes through the one email server and that's it? :lol:

Yeah and the parsing is you when you put "personal account" in quotes like that so you can control the narrative of the discussion around your new found phrase there. It isn't about a "personal account". It's about use of a "private server".

If it's a private server such as HRC's and the emails sent received are of the same domain name, yes.

I simply ask a question, knowing the difference between the two.
 
Or, he wasn't lying about it and that's why Mueller is pissed off.

Funny how that got leaked...today...right after the news of Mueller yanking the plea deal.

There was a former US attorney on Laura Ingraham's show last night that said it best about this farce: It's not about whether or not Manafort, Stone, or Corsi did anything in the eyes of Mueller, but rather it's that they "lied" to him. And he touched on this supposed report that Mueller is assembling. What the report will basically say is "these 3 guys were lying to me and preventing any real work to be done. I'm so mad because they're lying that they need to go to jail for lying to me." That's what the report will imply because as far as evidence found in the past 2 years for Trump/Russia collusion, there is none. So Mueller can't put down his "report" (which I don't think there will be one if he tries to base it on the real truth). Instead, if there is a "report" from his farce (the sorry excuse that we call an investigation) that would have "evidence" against Trump, he'd simply make it up.

Real collusion with Russia comes from the Clinton campaign which there is real, documented evidence. They hired Russia, along with Christopher Steele, to write up that pee dossier, which was never vetted. It was an opposition research paper to try and smear Trump during the campaign, but yet it was somehow accepted evidence, even though there no evidence to back up it's claims? Then of course there's the matter of the FBI planting a spy in Trump's campaign team. "Well, he was there so he can make sure Trump was protected from the Russians." If that's true, why didn't Hillary's campaign team have an FBI spy to do the same thing for her? For the spy in Trump's camp, that guy would have informed the FBI immediately if Manafort met with Julian Assange, but that spy didn't. Why now is this coming out? In an actual investigation, information like that would come out almost instantly, so let's not fool ourselves on this topic.

Lastly, Obama recently said that he, his campaign, and his administration had no indictments nor any controversies that involved him. Well if that's true, what the hell are these:

-"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Wasn't true
-"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Also not true
-"Premiums will go down under my plan." REALLY not true (I work at a doctor's office and I can confirm this statement wasn't even remotely close to the truth, same with the other 2 things listed above)
-Solyndra failing, and it did with our tax payer money.
-Telling miners and laborers that their jobs were being shipped oversea. Audio and video backs that.
-VA patients dying while waiting to be seen (his practice of socialized medicine).
-Giving Iran, a sponsor for terrorism and continues to call for the destruction of both the US and Israel, billions of dollars for their nuclear arms program.
-Flaming the violent protests and anarchy after the Treyvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Eric Gardner cases.
-The apology tour to the other nations and apologizing that, somehow, our country is wrong and dishonorable.
-Bashing on Christians
-Bringing the traitor, Bowe Bergdhal, whose fellow soldiers died looking for him when he deserted his unit, back to US soil without a court martial.

There's many others but I want to name the most controversial, IMO, of all the controversies he was involved with:

-Benghazi, and we STILL don't know who ordered the stand down order during that time. My money is on Obama himself issued that order. That is simply too big of situation for any other of his cabinet members to give an order such as that.
 
Paragraph 5.

Paragraph 5 is the defendant's rebuttal, not Mueller's. Mueller says he lied, and doesn't share what he lied about. Manafort says he didn't lie.

So IF Manafort lied and that is why Mueller is revoking the plea deal, then we can speculate on what he lied about. You are welcome to believe the defendant's plea of innocence, but from what little I know of the two men, I find Bob Mueller orders of magnitude more credible than Paul Manafort.
 
There was a former US attorney on Laura Ingraham's show last night that said it best about this farce: It's not about whether or not Manafort, Stone, or Corsi did anything in the eyes of Mueller, but rather it's that they "lied" to him. And he touched on this supposed report that Mueller is assembling. What the report will basically say is "these 3 guys were lying to me and preventing any real work to be done. I'm so mad because they're lying that they need to go to jail for lying to me." That's what the report will imply because as far as evidence found in the past 2 years for Trump/Russia collusion, there is none. So Mueller can't put down his "report" (which I don't think there will be one if he tries to base it on the real truth). Instead, if there is a "report" from his farce (the sorry excuse that we call an investigation) that would have "evidence" against Trump, he'd simply make it up.

Real collusion with Russia comes from the Clinton campaign which there is real, documented evidence. They hired Russia, along with Christopher Steele, to write up that pee dossier, which was never vetted. It was an opposition research paper to try and smear Trump during the campaign, but yet it was somehow accepted evidence, even though there no evidence to back up it's claims? Then of course there's the matter of the FBI planting a spy in Trump's campaign team. "Well, he was there so he can make sure Trump was protected from the Russians." If that's true, why didn't Hillary's campaign team have an FBI spy to do the same thing for her? For the spy in Trump's camp, that guy would have informed the FBI immediately if Manafort met with Julian Assange, but that spy didn't. Why now is this coming out? In an actual investigation, information like that would come out almost instantly, so let's not fool ourselves on this topic.

Lastly, Obama recently said that he, his campaign, and his administration had no indictments nor any controversies that involved him. Well if that's true, what the hell are these:

-"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Wasn't true
-"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Also not true
-"Premiums will go down under my plan." REALLY not true (I work at a doctor's office and I can confirm this statement wasn't even remotely close to the truth, same with the other 2 things listed above)
-Solyndra failing, and it did with our tax payer money.
-Telling miners and laborers that their jobs were being shipped oversea. Audio and video backs that.
-VA patients dying while waiting to be seen (his practice of socialized medicine).
-Giving Iran, a sponsor for terrorism and continues to call for the destruction of both the US and Israel, billions of dollars for their nuclear arms program.
-Flaming the violent protests and anarchy after the Treyvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Eric Gardner cases.
-The apology tour to the other nations and apologizing that, somehow, our country is wrong and dishonorable.
-Bashing on Christians
-Bringing the traitor, Bowe Bergdhal, whose fellow soldiers died looking for him when he deserted his unit, back to US soil without a court martial.

There's many others but I want to name the most controversial, IMO, of all the controversies he was involved with:

-Benghazi, and we STILL don't know who ordered the stand down order during that time. My money is on Obama himself issued that order. That is simply too big of situation for any other of his cabinet members to give an order such as that.

Obama's over, and you'r King Tangface is ****ting himself with fear over this. So are you, that's why you have to seek out politcal porn for confirmation bias. You know deep down the president is a corrup piece of crap, but partisan pettiness is more important than that to you. Chances are the stress of knowing his family and he likely are going to get dirt all over them, his blood pressure, the lard he's packed on eating McDonalds, he's gonna stoke out or have a coronary, and it will be one of the best things ever happened to this nation. The taint of Trump and his corruption is making a swamp much swampier, and will take years to recover from if even we can.

You are so petty and so partisan you don't mind King Tangface being Putin's bottom boy. The damage Trump has done to us internationally is also gonna hurt a long time. Go read some more political porn and get some better talking points cuz this has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton, this is your corrupt guy, and you are so petty and partisan you don't care.:roll:
 
Thanks for the story. Wikileaks is the connection between the Trump Campaign and Russia. The "collusion" Trump keeps whining about.

Wikileaks refuted the report that Manafort met with Assange calling it one of the great embarrassments in journalism history.
he Washington Times found that Paul Manafort’s passport does not show any trips to London in the years he reportedly met with Julian Assange.
The Guardian report is a complete lie. Never trust the Fake News Media!

Their trick is report with really big headlines, kind of like shouting it from the roof tops. Then retract or correct the story with a tiny little whisper that can barely be heard. It's how the fake news media works. And hey why bother trying to get corroborating sources or actual evidence BEFORE we report the story. They know damn well that the first impression is all that counts...
they can print any lie they want and retract it quiety...but what sticks in the average idiot's head? The original lie.
 
Last edited:
Oh. That’s right.

Your answer will depend on if it’s Hillary or Ivanka.

The post you quoted of me was discussing both the private account and the private email server. You didn't differentiate between the two so I asked, which she. If you'd climb down off that partisan high horse you're riding you might learn something, hell, you might even teach something.
 
Wikileaks refuted the report that Manafort met with Assange calling it one of the great embarrassments in journalism history.
he Washington Times found that Paul Manafort’s passport does not show any trips to London in the years he reportedly met with Julian Assange.
The Guardian report is a complete lie. Never trust the Fake News Media!

Their trick is report with really big headlines, kind of like shouting it from the roof tops. Then retract or correct the story with a tiny little whisper that can barely be heard. It's how the fake news media works. And hey why bother trying to get corroborating sources or actual evidence BEFORE we report the story. They know damn well that the first impression is all that counts...
they can print any lie they want and retract it quiety...but what sticks in the average idiot's head? The original lie.

You do know that it is NOT required to have your American passport "stamped" in order for an American to enter the UK, don't you?

You didn't know that?

Well colour me surprised!.

OK, so now that we have established that an American does NOT require a stamp on their passport in order to enter the UK, exactly what does the lack of a passport entry stamp tell you about whether or not that American entered the UK?

[HINT - Not one damn thing.]

PS - Do I expect that you would shout "The Guardian report is a complete lie. Never trust the Fake News Media!" from the rooftops and then later admit that it was a statement made out of complete ignorance of the law? Is the Pope Jewish?
 
Absolutely astonishing. Add this to the already mountainous stack of evidence. Countless lies. Countless secret encounters. And yet Trump knew nothing about nothing. This is so disgusting it smells of pure sewage.

How could anyone really imagine Trump colluded with Russia to win the election? Trump or anyone on the
Trump team somehow approaching Russia stating we can't win against such a super candidate like Mrs. Clinton and is
there anyway at all that Russia can alter the outcome in our favor, & if you can we will return the favor down the line.

In future decades there will not be another proceeding more laughable than this effort, an indulgence born of genuine stupidity
 
How could anyone really imagine Trump colluded with Russia to win the election? Trump or anyone on the
Trump team somehow approaching Russia stating we can't win against such a super candidate like Mrs. Clinton and is
there anyway at all that Russia can alter the outcome in our favor, & if you can we will return the favor down the line.

In future decades there will not be another proceeding more laughable than this effort, an indulgence born of genuine stupidity

Russia might have offered it to Trump, not the other way around. I'm not the one that was scheduling meetings with Russians about dirt on Hillary and then lying about it. It's likely that Russia was pushing hard on this and it's a big problem that Trump and Co are being so dishonest at every single turn when questioned.
 
How could anyone really imagine Trump colluded with Russia to win the election? Trump or anyone on the
Trump team somehow approaching Russia stating we can't win against such a super candidate like Mrs. Clinton and is
there anyway at all that Russia can alter the outcome in our favor, & if you can we will return the favor down the line.

In future decades there will not be another proceeding more laughable than this effort, an indulgence born of genuine stupidity

A more realistic question is "How can anyone realistically believe that the Russians would be so stupid as to 'collude' directly with a person of Mr. Trump's known temperament and reliability?".

On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine the leaders of a kleptocracy working with the people who promised them a whole lot of money if they would help bring about a certain result. Not only that, but it doesn't take a whole lot of "willing suspension of disbelief" to imagine that a bunch of people who saw the opportunity to increase their personal wealth if a certain result were to be obtained offering the leaders of a kleptocracy a whole lot of money to help them bring about that result.
 
So you think that google uses less protection on their email server system than Hillary's home brewed server used? Interesting. I guess that is why she felt comfortable referencing three different undercover agents in her emails. S*** like that can get people killed. But in Hillary's words "What difference does it make anyway?"
he

There were no emails on Hillary’s server that directly identified any undercover agents. You’ve been duped again! Way to keep the streak alive!
 
Good lord. Here we go with the semantics games.

Private server. She used a private server. Doesn't mean she owned the server. It means she used a private server. You may continue with your games now to parse it even further.

In this particular case, its accurate. She set up her own server.
 
Back
Top Bottom