Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Tiggs

National Enquirer Immunity Deal

206 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
1 hour ago, joc said:

I'm not making anything up!  The entire story of Trump paying Prostitutes to pee on a bed Obama slept in was a complete fabrication of a former MI6 operative Christopher Steele who was hired by Fusion GPS.   Steele colluded with Russian spies and came up with a story about Trump.  Hillary and the DNC paid for it.  

No you believe it was completely fabricated, that is not a fact. It  has not been disproven and,  in fact much of the dossier has been confirmed, if not the most salacious parts.

Having a large percentage of our society operating on belief as if it were fact places this nation in great danger, the founding fathers worked really hard to create a nation that ran on facts and rationality and not faith,  having a POTUS who is encouraging that mindset is frankly terrifying.

I'm not saying the unverified parts of the dossier are absolutely true because we simply just do not know (well that and I believe we should all be left alone to be as freaky as we want in private)

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
22 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, that's political reality; what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. The Dems lowered the bar to save Slick Willie and it's stuck there, now.

I find that so frustrating. Then whats the point of being a republican? Why spend decades b****ing about the dems and their lack of respect for morality, ethics and the law to simply become them?

Not only have they become nothing more than the dumbed down right version of clintonites they dont even have the respect for the electorate to pretend that they actually care about the rhetoric theyve spewed for decades.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
37 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No you believe it was completely fabricated, that is not a fact. It  has not been disproven and,  in fact much of the dossier has been confirmed, if not the most salacious parts

So...are you waiting for me to call your bluff on that and ask for a Link?  Wait no more!  I am.  The two words that lead to the downfall of unsupported allegations:  Prove it! Please enlighten us as to the confirmed parts of the dossier.  Saying something is disproven is not proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, joc said:

So...are you waiting for me to call your bluff on that and ask for a Link?  Wait no more!  I am.  The two words that lead to the downfall of unsupported allegations:  Prove it! Please enlighten us as to the confirmed parts of the dossier.  Saying something is disproven is not proof.

Prove that parts of the dossier are true? Sure

What’s True in Trump-Russia Dossier? Key Parts Proved Over Last Year

Quote

Dossier Claim: Russia Meddled

Revelation: The U.S. intelligence apparatus concluded that Russia interfered in 2016’s election in a report released in January 2017. Though Steele’s name is not mentioned in that report, it does back up his reporting that Russia was actively interfering in the election process.

Dossier Claim: Russia Had Dirt on Clinton and DNC

Revelation: Much of the dossier is devoted not only to Trump but to Russia’s—specifically Putin’s—distaste for former Secretary of State Clinton. “Putin motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton,” one line of the dossier reads. Another line said: “The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whom President Putin apparently both hated and feared.”

Steele later cites one source as stating Russia that was behind the leak of hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails to WikiLeaks.

The U.S. intelligence community confirmed not only that Russia had tried to meddle in the election but that it was the source of the hacked DNC emails released by WikiLeaks.

Dossier Claim: Putin Was in Charge

Revelation: On the very first page of the dossier, Steele explains that the election meddling was “endorsed by Putin” and that the effort was “both supported and directed” by him. The U.S. intelligence report reached the same conclusion, writing that Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the presidential election.” According to Steele’s sources, Putin and Russia had been cultivating Trump for “at least 5 years.”

Dossier Claim: Mr. Cohen Goes to Prague

Revelation: The president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was accused in the dossier of meeting with “Kremlin representatives” in Prague in August 2016. Cohen has repeatedly denied traveling to the Czech capital, but McClatchy last month reported that Mueller had evidence the trip happened.

The report stated that Mueller’s team discovered proof Cohen got to Prague through Germany. The two countries are part of a number of European nations with an open borders agreement that allows undocumented travel. However, no other media outlet has been able to confirm McClatchy’s reporting.

Dossier Claim: Russian Diplomat Was a Spy

Revelation: Steele also claimed that Russia was worried a diplomat named Mikhail Kalugin was heavily involved in the meddling operation. Afraid he would be exposed, Russia pulled Kalugin out of Washington on “short notice.” Steele actually misspelled Kalugin’s name, but the U.S. government had identified Kalugin as a Russian spy, the BBC reported in March.

Dossier Claim: Page Met With Russians

Revelation: Carter Page previously denied having met with Russian government officials during his trip to Russia in July 2016, but he admitted to the meeting while speaking to the House Intelligence Committee last November. Page was a foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign and in June 2016 delivered a speech in Washington praising Putin. And as early as September 2016, U.S. officials were looking into Page’s contacts in Russia, Yahoo News reported.

Dossier Claim: Manafort Received Payment for Work in Ukraine

Revelation: Paul Manafort, who is facing serious charges from Mueller’s team, worked extensively in Ukraine for years before Trump hired him as campaign chairman in 2016. The longtime Washington lobbyist received $12.7 million from the political party of former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych between 2007 and 2012, The New York Times reported on August 14, 2016. Manafort resigned from the campaign after that report.

Steele’s dossier states that Yanukovych and Putin met the day after the story broke, and the former made assurances to the latter that no trail could be found.

“This had been held in secret on 15 August near Volgograd, Russia, and the Western media revelations about Manafort and Ukraine had featured prominently on the agenda,” the dossier says about the meeting. “Yanukovych had confided in Putin that he did authorize and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no document trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this.”

In April 2017, financial records unearthed by the Associated Press confirmed that at least $1.2 million went to Manafort’s company from Ukraine.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

 

So thats the stuff thats been proven correct thus far. Admittedly there is, as of yet, much of the dossier which is uncorroborated. None of the dossier has been "disproven".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
14 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, America had thr choice between two crooks last time, do you think it’ll be any different the next time?

'Xactly!  And I bet Trump is jealous of the ka-billions HRC has tucked away in off shore accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Prove that parts of the dossier are true? Sure

What’s True in Trump-Russia Dossier? Key Parts Proved Over Last Year

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

 

So thats the stuff thats been proven correct thus far. Admittedly there is, as of yet, much of the dossier which is uncorroborated. None of the dossier has been "disproven".

So, yeah, no disrespect meant but...I think I was set up...lol.  That's a lot of information...must have had that one ready to go; it appeared so fast all processed and ready to go....

I'll look at it when I get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
12 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Any way you slice it -- they weren't included in the campaign finance reports.

 

...which influenced the election.

And me denouncing HRC on a radio station also influenced the election. So...?

People - ALL people, have a right to try to influence the election through free speech. The leftists throw "influence the election" around like it's a crime, but... ONLY when it is Trump and his supporters. (please note, running an anti Trump rally)

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, joc said:

So, yeah, no disrespect meant but...I think I was set up...lol.  That's a lot of information...must have had that one ready to go; it appeared so fast all processed and ready to go....

Honestly man I wasnt trying to set you up that article is from I think May, this stuff has been publicly known for quite a while.

I think alot of the beliefs that people on the right hold regarding Trump and the investigation are held because the right wing media has wholly abdicated its duty to report news. Its been really stunning to watch the reporting. Historically you could bounce between center, left and right wing sources and generally speaking they would all be reporting on the same story just maybe from different angles.

I've noticed over the last couple of years though whats happened is when stories negative to Trump break in the rest of the world  Foxnews et al (conspicuously including RT) run with stories about Mexican atrocities or Hillary Clinton rather than cover the stories.

Thats not to vilify anyone just making an observation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
52 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I find that so frustrating. Then whats the point of being a republican? Why spend decades b****ing about the dems and their lack of respect for morality, ethics and the law to simply become them?

Not only have they become nothing more than the dumbed down right version of clintonites they dont even have the respect for the electorate to pretend that they actually care about the rhetoric theyve spewed for decades.

 

Welcome to political reality. Voters care about issues that directly, or are perceived to directly impact their lives, their hopes, their beliefs. It's ironic that Dems, who have spent decades deliberately eroding traditional ethical and moral standards, are so appalled that it actually worked. Welcome to the world you created.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And me denouncing HRC on a radio station also influenced the election. So...?

People - ALL people, have a right to try to influence the election through free speech. The leftists throw "influence the election" around like it's a crime, but... ONLY when it is Trump and his supporters. (please note, the Steele Dossier)

The difference between committing a felony to influence an election, and not, is the felony part.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Welcome to political reality. Voters care about issues that directly, or are perceived to directly impact their lives, their hopes, their beliefs. It's ironic that Dems, who have spent decades deliberately eroding traditional ethical and moral standards, are so appalled that it actually worked. Welcome to the world you created.

Not me amigo. This midterm is the first time ive ever voted a dem party line and 2016 was my first vote for a democrat ever - someone local i cant even remember who . I was all GOP until around '05, moral majority and all of that,  and have from then until now voted third party.

This year however was too important to mess around.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

The difference between committing a felony to influence an election, and not, is the felony part.

Ah, but is it a crime to pay a prostitute to not influence an election?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Ah, but is it a crime to pay a prostitute to not influence an election?

Ask Cohen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Not me amigo. This midterm is the first time ive ever voted a dem party line and 2016 was my first vote for a democrat ever - someone local i cant even remember who . I was all GOP until around '05, moral majority and all of that,  and have from then until now voted third party.

This year however was too important to mess around.

 

Your usual fallback position to escape taking a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Tiggs said:

Ask Cohen.

Show me where he was prosecuted for that particular action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Your usual fallback position to escape taking a stand.

Or just the reality of my life. Ya know , either way :tu:

IDK though I would call this taking a stand:

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This year however was too important to mess around.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Or just the reality of my life. Ya know , either way :tu:

IDK though I would call this taking a stand:

 

I'd call it climbing back up on the fence, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'd call it climbing back up on the fence, but whatever.

Thats some good trolling :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Show me where he was prosecuted for that particular action.

Here's SDNY's sentencing memo for Cohen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Here's SDNY's sentencing memo for Cohen.

He lied...a lot. That's not his biggest problem, he's guilty of tax evasion. As for payments to prostitutes and the purchase of the rights to their stories to suppress them, that falls under the category of non disclosure agreements, perfectly legal if executed properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, that's political reality; what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. The Dems lowered the bar to save Slick Willie and it's stuck there, now.

I thought it the same thing about the goose and gander- for slightly different reasons.

Because of politics, Clinton will be under suspicion for the rest of her life or until she slips up and gets sent to jail.  Now Trump will be under suspicion for the rest of his or until he slips up and goes to jail.  The only difference is Trump seems to be messing up on the don't slip up and get sent to jail part.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

I thought it the same thing about the goose and gander- for slightly different reasons.

Because of politics, Clinton will be under suspicion for the rest of her life or until she slips up and gets sent to jail.  Now Trump will be under suspicion for the rest of his or until he slips up and goes to jail.  The only difference is Trump seems to be messing up on the don't slip up and get sent to jail part.

 

A recurring theme during that ugly episode of American history called the Clinton Presidency.They even got as far as an actual impeachment, which failed, along part lines. The same would happen in the present circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Sure. Candidates often commit multiple felonies and pay quarter of a million dollars to cover up stuff that's entirely inconsequential.

May also want to note -- from an entirely legal perspective -- that both Cohen and Pecker are on record saying that they did it to stop the stories influencing the election.

The law also says that if there is ANY other purpose for the expenditure, it cannot be called campaign finance spending.  This one, like all the others, is another orgasm of hope that will let you down yet again.  Hiding his infidelity from his wife certainly fits that mold.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
18 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Any way you slice it -- they weren't included in the campaign finance reports.

The John Edwards trial set precedent for this.  It was found by the FEC that any expenditure that COULD have another purpose other than direct funding of campaign expenses, cannot be proven to be "campaign" expense.  Good luck with those hopes and dreams.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, and then said:

The John Edwards trial set precedent for this.  It was found by the FEC that any expenditure that COULD have another purpose other than direct funding of campaign expenses, cannot be proven to be "campaign" expense.  Good luck with those hopes and dreams.

Yeah, if this is all they've got, they ain't got nuthin'. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.