dudmuck
Diamond Member
Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rosenstein is out... Mueller the Dem-slave gets a new boss
- Thread starter justoffal
- Start date
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
Working the edges isn't going to save you boss. I noticed you had no counter argument to mine about the crimes being three years or less, but instead punted by going to Manafort. Lol! Flynn, Papadopolous, Gates, Butina, Cohen, the Russians, are not old crimes. Get your head out of your ass.
The length of time Manaforts crimes have had is irrelevant when you cannot tie them to the original CRIMES that supposedly mandate the Special Counsels investigation, doofus. What are those crimes?
.
I find it fascinating that the Trumpkin theory is that a prosecutor who finds crimes in the course of his investigation shouldn't prosecute them.
Manaforts crimes were discovered in the course of Mueller's investigations- and loyal Trumpkins are outraged that he is being prosecuted.
Because the minions of their Dear Leader must not be accused....
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
Lol, you are delusional and ignorant.
Guardian ‘Smoking Gun’ Story on Manafort-Assange Meeting Backfires
So anxious was The Guardian to drive a stake through the Donald Trump presidency that it ran a story on Tuesday that now appears not to be provable and perhaps not true at all.
The story on the front of the Guardian claimed Paul Manafort, who was briefly Trump’s campaign manager during the summer of 2016, held secret talks with Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadoran embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and in the spring of 2016, shortly before he went to work for Trump.
The Guardian admitted it does not know why Manafort went to see Assange, but a few months after an alleged meeting in March 2016, “Wikileaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.” This is contested. WikiLeaks offered a reward for information in the death of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee employee who was shot near his DC home in the summer of 2016.
CNN jumped in promptly.
“Hugely significant,” Shan Wu, CNN legal analyst, said after Piper Harlow introduced the segment. “This really could be one of the two missing links to show interference and knowledge of the Russian involvement. This could certainly explain the focus we’ve been seeing on [Trump friend Roger] Stone because he could be the other direct link there.”
Soon after the story appeared, Wikileaks tweeted: “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @Wikileaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.”
It included a link to the story as originally published, with a headline that read: “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy” and a subhead: “Exclusive: Trump ally met WikiLeaks founder months before emails hacked by Russia were published.”
Not long after the Wikileaks tweet, corrections to the story began to appear on the Guardian website. The headline was changed to say, “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say,” an attempt to distance itself from the claims.
It inserted a new third paragraph of the story that says Manafort denied the claim. “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said in his statement. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”
In the next paragraph, it inserted the phrase “would have” in one sentence and ‘apparent’ in another, so it read, “It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and cold interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigation alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Later, it inserted the phrase “might have” into a sentence so that it read, “Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear. During this period the veteran consultant was involved in black operations against Yanukovych’s chief political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, …”
By Wednesday morning, even Trump haters such as Prett Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York whom the president fired shortly after taking office, and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute, close friend of James Comey whose Lawfare blog regularly attacks the president, were expressing doubt.
“I’d like to see some corroboration of this,” Bharara said. “Because of the way this is sourced, color me a little skeptical,” Wittes said.
But Joe Pompeo of Vanity Fair was unwilling to let it go. The edits did “hedge certain bits of language, but they did not significantly alter any of the core assertions in the reporting,” he wrote. Moreover, the article “contained some key details with a level of specificity that would seem to hint at a high level of confidence in sourcing.”
The authors apparently knew Manafort’s visit lasted 40 minutes and he was casually dressed in a light-colored shirt.
The story on the front of the Guardian claimed Paul Manafort, who was briefly Trump’s campaign manager during the summer of 2016, held secret talks with Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadoran embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and in the spring of 2016, shortly before he went to work for Trump.
The Guardian admitted it does not know why Manafort went to see Assange, but a few months after an alleged meeting in March 2016, “Wikileaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.” This is contested. WikiLeaks offered a reward for information in the death of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee employee who was shot near his DC home in the summer of 2016.
CNN jumped in promptly.
“Hugely significant,” Shan Wu, CNN legal analyst, said after Piper Harlow introduced the segment. “This really could be one of the two missing links to show interference and knowledge of the Russian involvement. This could certainly explain the focus we’ve been seeing on [Trump friend Roger] Stone because he could be the other direct link there.”
Soon after the story appeared, Wikileaks tweeted: “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @Wikileaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.”
It included a link to the story as originally published, with a headline that read: “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy” and a subhead: “Exclusive: Trump ally met WikiLeaks founder months before emails hacked by Russia were published.”
Not long after the Wikileaks tweet, corrections to the story began to appear on the Guardian website. The headline was changed to say, “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say,” an attempt to distance itself from the claims.
It inserted a new third paragraph of the story that says Manafort denied the claim. “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said in his statement. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”
In the next paragraph, it inserted the phrase “would have” in one sentence and ‘apparent’ in another, so it read, “It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and cold interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigation alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Later, it inserted the phrase “might have” into a sentence so that it read, “Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear. During this period the veteran consultant was involved in black operations against Yanukovych’s chief political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, …”
By Wednesday morning, even Trump haters such as Prett Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York whom the president fired shortly after taking office, and Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute, close friend of James Comey whose Lawfare blog regularly attacks the president, were expressing doubt.
“I’d like to see some corroboration of this,” Bharara said. “Because of the way this is sourced, color me a little skeptical,” Wittes said.
But Joe Pompeo of Vanity Fair was unwilling to let it go. The edits did “hedge certain bits of language, but they did not significantly alter any of the core assertions in the reporting,” he wrote. Moreover, the article “contained some key details with a level of specificity that would seem to hint at a high level of confidence in sourcing.”
The authors apparently knew Manafort’s visit lasted 40 minutes and he was casually dressed in a light-colored shirt.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
Paul Manafort denies meeting Julian Assange, as passports’ stamps don’t match accusations
Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 29, 2018
Paul Manafort’s three passports show two visits to England in 2010 and 2012, aiding his denial of a Guardian newspaper story that claimed he met secretly with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in London.
A review of Manafort’s passports since 2008 shows he entered Heathrow Airport on two occasions. There are no other stamps for arriving in Great Britain.
It is conceivable that Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, could have entered from a European country and not received a stamp. But a Manafort representative told The Washington Times that Manafort has only made those two visits to England since 2008. The source said a libel suit against The Guardian is under discussion.
Two of his passports were entered as evidence at his tax evasion trial. The Times acquired a copy of his third passport on Thursday.
Paul Manafort’s three passports show two visits to England in 2010 and 2012, aiding his denial of a Guardian newspaper story that claimed he met secretly with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in London.
A review of Manafort’s passports since 2008 shows he entered Heathrow Airport on two occasions. There are no other stamps for arriving in Great Britain.
It is conceivable that Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, could have entered from a European country and not received a stamp. But a Manafort representative told The Washington Times that Manafort has only made those two visits to England since 2008. The source said a libel suit against The Guardian is under discussion.
Two of his passports were entered as evidence at his tax evasion trial. The Times acquired a copy of his third passport on Thursday.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
It Is Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other Evidence Showing This.
THE GUARDIAN TODAY published a blockbuster, instantly viral story claiming that anonymous sources told the newspaper that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at least three times in the Ecuadorian Embassy, “in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016.” The article – from lead reporter Luke Harding, who has a long-standing and vicious personal feud with WikiLeaks and is still promoting his book titled “Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House” – presents no evidence, documents or other tangible proof to substantiate its claim, and it is deliberately vague on a key point: whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign....
While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalisticvoices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, “is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.”
There are many more reasons than the very valid ones cited by Heer to treat this story with great skepticism, which I will outline in a moment. Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange – either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times – but since the Guardian presents literally no evidence for the reader to evaluate, relying instead on a combination of an anonymous source and a secret and bizarrely vague intelligence document it claims it reviewed (but does not publish), no rational person would assume this story to be true.
But the main point is this one: London itself is one of the world’s most surveilled, if not the most surveilled, cities. And the Ecuadorian Embassy in that city – for obvious reasons – is one of the most scrutinized, surveilled, monitored and filmed locations on the planet.
In 2015, Wired reported that “the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated 5.9 million CCTV cameras keep watch over our every move,” and that “by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day.” The World Atlas proclaimed that “London is the most spied-on city in the world,” and that “on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.”
For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments – at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not only are guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, but they also pass through multiple visible cameras – to say nothing of the invisible ones – on their way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange.
In 2015, the BBC reported that “Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there,” and that “between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime.”
Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the very same Guardian that now wants you to believe that a person as prominent as Manafort visited Assange without having you see any video footage proving this happened, itself claimed that “Ecuador bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and support Julian Assange in its central London embassy, employing an international security company and undercover agents to monitor his visitors, embassy staff and even the British police,”
This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.
While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalisticvoices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, “is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.”
There are many more reasons than the very valid ones cited by Heer to treat this story with great skepticism, which I will outline in a moment. Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange – either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times – but since the Guardian presents literally no evidence for the reader to evaluate, relying instead on a combination of an anonymous source and a secret and bizarrely vague intelligence document it claims it reviewed (but does not publish), no rational person would assume this story to be true.
But the main point is this one: London itself is one of the world’s most surveilled, if not the most surveilled, cities. And the Ecuadorian Embassy in that city – for obvious reasons – is one of the most scrutinized, surveilled, monitored and filmed locations on the planet.
In 2015, Wired reported that “the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated 5.9 million CCTV cameras keep watch over our every move,” and that “by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day.” The World Atlas proclaimed that “London is the most spied-on city in the world,” and that “on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.”
For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments – at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not only are guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, but they also pass through multiple visible cameras – to say nothing of the invisible ones – on their way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange.
In 2015, the BBC reported that “Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there,” and that “between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime.”
Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the very same Guardian that now wants you to believe that a person as prominent as Manafort visited Assange without having you see any video footage proving this happened, itself claimed that “Ecuador bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and support Julian Assange in its central London embassy, employing an international security company and undercover agents to monitor his visitors, embassy staff and even the British police,”
This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.But that doesnt necessarily clear Trump from ambiguous charges that are not defined because the Special Counsel statute is being entirely ignored.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
No videos of Manafort entering the Ecuadoran embassy, no sign in by Manafort, no recordings, no certitude only stealth dilution of their own claims.
You are a typical liberal dupe even months after the obvious is well known.
dudmuck
Diamond Member
UK probably has footage, just not publicly released.Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.But that doesnt necessarily clear Trump from ambiguous charges that are not defined because the Special Counsel statute is being entirely ignored.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
No videos of Manafort entering the Ecuadoran embassy, no sign in by Manafort, no recordings, no certitude only stealth dilution of their own claims.
You are a typical liberal dupe even months after the obvious is well known.
Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, the reporters behind the Guardian story, do not name their sources, although they claim to have multiple, and they write that they have seen an internal document from Ecuador’s intelligence service listing “Paul Manaford [sic]” as a visitor to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
Nah, not sufficient.UK probably has footage, just not publicly released.Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.But that doesnt necessarily clear Trump from ambiguous charges that are not defined because the Special Counsel statute is being entirely ignored.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
No videos of Manafort entering the Ecuadoran embassy, no sign in by Manafort, no recordings, no certitude only stealth dilution of their own claims.
You are a typical liberal dupe even months after the obvious is well known.
Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, the reporters behind the Guardian story, do not name their sources, although they claim to have multiple, and they write that they have seen an internal document from Ecuador’s intelligence service listing “Paul Manaford [sic]” as a visitor to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
there would be endless videos that Journalists can get all the time, and no, any visitor has to sign in, no secret club handshakes allowed.
Dude, grow the hell up.
dudmuck
Diamond Member
The story has been up on the guardian for almost a month and they haven't backpedaled, and The Guardian is a reputable news outlet.
WheelieAddict
Gold Member
- Feb 10, 2012
- 7,853
- 1,140
- 265
Its a cult.Why are republicans so upset at criminals being prosecuted?
Why do you feel like you are going to prison just because someone with an R by their name is going to prison...that's on them, why do you feel its on you?
you guys take this party cheerleading too far.....
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- 2,220
You should re-read post #85, dude.The story has been up on the guardian for almost a month and they haven't backpedaled, and The Guardian is a reputable news outlet.
The OP lied about Rosenstein.Haven’t seen a link on Rosensteins removal
But any attempt to replace him with someone who will restrict the scope of the investigation will be more evidence of obstruction of justice
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 37,377
- 48,779
- 2,915
The desperation of the Trump cultists here is delightful to witness. This reality is far too painful for them to bear, so they've invented an alternate bizarro-reality, one where they haven't spent years smooching the keisters of corrupt criminal traitors.
Whatever this latest conspiracy theory is (nobody really cares any more), it will turn out like their previous hundred conspiracy theories. Reality will shoot it down. Normal people would take that to mean the conspiracy theory was incorrect. Trump cultists? They take it to mean that an even bigger conspiracy is covering up all the lesser conspiracies. That's how cultists view any information that contradicts cult dogma. It is literally impossible to change the mind of a cultists using facts and reason. They weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
lol wow, talk about crazy cultist who live in deep denial of reality......
The Left Wingers are pump full of lies 24/7 by the Democrat Press/Hollywood hate machine.
There is no Russian Collusion.
Obama and Hillary have gotten away with breaking all kinds of laws.
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 37,377
- 48,779
- 2,915
What in the name of the Goddesses are you blathering about? Rosenstein has not been overseeing the investigation for some time . Whitaker has been Mueller's boss.Nobody believes that the Mueller investigation is unbiased anymore.
Sure there's a few core believers on the left who still think that there will be
A dual impeachment and removal of Trump/Pence and that the drooling hag will becomte he nation's first woman president. You cannot fix that kind of stupid.
Mueller will now have boundaries...
He will now be made to do his job the way he is supposed to do it which means the fishing trip is over.... Oh and I guess that means the investigation is also over because all he has left is fishing.
Jo
And your apparent reference to Hillary Clinton is even more stupid. Do you actually believe that if Trump and Pence where ousted, that she would become president??
no, the crazy russian conspiracy cultist believe that after they impeach Trump and Pence that Pelosi would be the president.
What laws were broken? And by the way, the multiple conspiracies have already been proven to attack the U.S. in a presidential election.The desperation of the Trump cultists here is delightful to witness. This reality is far too painful for them to bear, so they've invented an alternate bizarro-reality, one where they haven't spent years smooching the keisters of corrupt criminal traitors.
Whatever this latest conspiracy theory is (nobody really cares any more), it will turn out like their previous hundred conspiracy theories. Reality will shoot it down. Normal people would take that to mean the conspiracy theory was incorrect. Trump cultists? They take it to mean that an even bigger conspiracy is covering up all the lesser conspiracies. That's how cultists view any information that contradicts cult dogma. It is literally impossible to change the mind of a cultists using facts and reason. They weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
lol wow, talk about crazy cultist who live in deep denial of reality......
The Left Wingers are pump full of lies 24/7 by the Democrat Press/Hollywood hate machine.
There is no Russian Collusion.
Obama and Hillary have gotten away with breaking all kinds of laws.
View attachment 236427
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 37,377
- 48,779
- 2,915
The five steps of collusion around the hacking and release of the stolen emails are simple:You've provided nothing. You're a liar.It's true you just cant accept the facts f what I proveded.If that were true, you would have laid out an intelligent counter argument to the contrary, and you did not.You just failed miserably, and you have nothing to counter the facts with. Don't you just feel like a total idiot sometimes?You gave nothing but more lib bullshit."I say so"? No, the law says so. I have nothing to do with it, while you"look up into the sky". As a matter of fact, your only counter argument is to "look up into the sky". "Where's the proof"? I gave it to you. Look up the statutes and the activities that took place with Trump and his co-conspirators, and the truth is dead in front of our eyes. But keep "looking up into the sky"and the sky will eventually set you free.
- Russia’s military intelligence unit hacked the emails of Trump’s Democratic opponents.
- Russia alerted the Trump Campaign that they are in possession of the stolen emails.
- The two sides met to coordinate.
- Russia released emails through its trusted intermediary WikiLeaks, timed to benefit the Trump campaign.
- Trump made the emails central to his message in the final weeks of the campaign.
OMG they walk amongst us
Are you borderline retarded? I mean seriously? If the Guardian has or doesn't have video, do you think for one second SC is going to let all that out until the investigation is completed?Nah, not sufficient.UK probably has footage, just not publicly released.Since Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, its likely that Trump knew. These manafort-assange talks occurred prior to tower meeting.But that doesnt necessarily clear Trump from ambiguous charges that are not defined because the Special Counsel statute is being entirely ignored.
Remeber how many times Trump mentioned wikileaks while campaigning.
No videos of Manafort entering the Ecuadoran embassy, no sign in by Manafort, no recordings, no certitude only stealth dilution of their own claims.
You are a typical liberal dupe even months after the obvious is well known.
Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, the reporters behind the Guardian story, do not name their sources, although they claim to have multiple, and they write that they have seen an internal document from Ecuador’s intelligence service listing “Paul Manaford [sic]” as a visitor to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
there would be endless videos that Journalists can get all the time, and no, any visitor has to sign in, no secret club handshakes allowed.
Dude, grow the hell up.
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 37,377
- 48,779
- 2,915
What laws were broken? And by the way, the multiple conspiracies have already been proven to attack the U.S. in a presidential election.The desperation of the Trump cultists here is delightful to witness. This reality is far too painful for them to bear, so they've invented an alternate bizarro-reality, one where they haven't spent years smooching the keisters of corrupt criminal traitors.
Whatever this latest conspiracy theory is (nobody really cares any more), it will turn out like their previous hundred conspiracy theories. Reality will shoot it down. Normal people would take that to mean the conspiracy theory was incorrect. Trump cultists? They take it to mean that an even bigger conspiracy is covering up all the lesser conspiracies. That's how cultists view any information that contradicts cult dogma. It is literally impossible to change the mind of a cultists using facts and reason. They weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
lol wow, talk about crazy cultist who live in deep denial of reality......
The Left Wingers are pump full of lies 24/7 by the Democrat Press/Hollywood hate machine.
There is no Russian Collusion.
Obama and Hillary have gotten away with breaking all kinds of laws.
View attachment 236427
illegally using the FBI as a political weapon
illegally using the DOJ as a political weapon
illegally using the IRS as a political weapon
illegally using a secret email server to hide Hillary's corruption
illegally destroying the email server to hide the evidence of her corruption
those just a few starters
Naw, we just waiting on you scum to prove one thing. Just one thing and you can't do it! lmaoThe desperation of the Trump cultists here is delightful to witness. This reality is far too painful for them to bear, so they've invented an alternate bizarro-reality, one where they haven't spent years smooching the keisters of corrupt criminal traitors.
Whatever this latest conspiracy theory is (nobody really cares any more), it will turn out like their previous hundred conspiracy theories. Reality will shoot it down. Normal people would take that to mean the conspiracy theory was incorrect. Trump cultists? They take it to mean that an even bigger conspiracy is covering up all the lesser conspiracies. That's how cultists view any information that contradicts cult dogma. It is literally impossible to change the mind of a cultists using facts and reason. They weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
got 75 subpoenas coming that will make trump shit green ,,and that's not counting Mueller finishing up in feb or march It's going to be a great 2019 ,,maybe ivanka, jr ,and Kirshner indicted
The five steps of collusion around the hacking and release of the stolen emails are simple:You've provided nothing. You're a liar.It's true you just cant accept the facts f what I proveded.If that were true, you would have laid out an intelligent counter argument to the contrary, and you did not.You just failed miserably, and you have nothing to counter the facts with. Don't you just feel like a total idiot sometimes?You gave nothing but more lib bullshit.
- Russia’s military intelligence unit hacked the emails of Trump’s Democratic opponents.
- Russia alerted the Trump Campaign that they are in possession of the stolen emails.
- The two sides met to coordinate.
- Russia released emails through its trusted intermediary WikiLeaks, timed to benefit the Trump campaign.
- Trump made the emails central to his message in the final weeks of the campaign.
OMG they walk amongst us
View attachment 236430
Okay coward, explain to us in detail, via how the statutes are written, how the Trump Tower meeting is not a conspiracy to work with a foreign adversary to use these Russians to try and get dirt on Hillary, not a crime? Also, how is the Jerome Corsi email dump to Wikileaks not a conspiracy,. that helped Trump get elected? How is Cambridge Analytica getting paid by Trump to use stolen FB data not a conspiracy to help him get elected? All eyes are waiting on you hot shot. This can be your shining moment, or a time when all of us will see what a liar and a fake you are. Get busy.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 131
- Locked
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 637
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 443
- Locked
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 335
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 99
- Replies
- 376
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 49
- Replies
- 351
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8520
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-