FBI raids office of Michael Cohen, personal attorney to Donald Trump

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

!!! Lordy there might be tapes!

Anyone know if NY is a single consent state?

 

[waiguoren]

90% of internet posts using the term "Occam's Razor" are utter dogshit.

Aw, is that Salty Fawlty being a bitch again?

Salty, I'm happy to be a member of the #Elite 10%.

Occam's Razor:

the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions

Jacky is implying a convoluted narrative by which Russia offered to release Russian e-mails through Wikileaks in secret coordination with the Trump campaign in exchange for....who knows?

My narrative is: Trump's campaign emphasized a thaw in US-Russia relations, while Clinton's was much more antagonistic. Putin favored the less-threatening side.

 

[Fawlty]

Aw, is that Salty Fawlty being a bitch again?

Salty, I'm happy to be a member of the #Elite 10%.

Occam's Razor:

the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions

Jacky is implying a convoluted narrative by which Russia offered to release Russian e-mails through Wikileaks in secret coordination with the Trump campaign in exchange for....who knows?

My narrative is: Trump's campaign emphasized a thaw in US-Russia relations, while Clinton's was much more antagonistic. Putin favored the less-threatening path.

Oh, thanks, nobody has ever defined Occam's Razor on the internet before after failing to be convincing.

 

[HomerThompson]

90% of internet posts using the term "Occam's Razor" are utter dogshit.

That's certainly the simplest explanation.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Here you are, pretty disgusting if you ask me.

....

The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

Supplemental tables within the Form 990 filed with the IRS show that the Clinton Foundation’s largest charitable grant was a $2 million payment to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (AHG), a joint project founded by the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association. Bruce Lindsey, the board chairman for the Clinton Foundation in 2014, also served on AHG’s board that year, according to the organization’s 2014 tax filings. Of the $16.3 million AHG organization spent in 2014, only $349,022, or 2.1 percent, was spent on charitable grants, the group’s tax filings show.

The Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor. Other charitable grants from the Clinton Foundation included $200,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation and $37,500 for the Sesame Workshop in New York City.

Clinton Foundation defenders say the total amount of its charitable grants is irrelevant and argue that the bulk of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is done by salaried employees. A review of the organization’s tax filings and statements from its own executives about the group’s “commercial proposition,” however, suggests that this may not be the case.

The Clinton Foundation’s three largest charitable “program service accomplishments,” according to its tax reports, are the Clinton Global Initiative ($23.2 million), the Clinton Presidential Library ($12.3 million), and the Clinton Climate Initiative ($8.3 million). The Clinton Global Initiative, which exists to organize and produce a lavish annual meeting headlined by former president Bill Clinton, was characterized by the New York Times as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities,” hardly a portrait of the kind of charitable work that directly impacts the lives of the needy.

Ira Magaziner, a top former Clinton Foundation executive, also explicitly rejected that the group’s climate change activities were charitable in nature. “This is not charity,” Magaziner told The Atlantic in 2007. “The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.”

In fact, the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.

Where did you copy and paste this from ?

According to charity navigator the Clinton foundation is a fine well run charity

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

 

[bobgeese]

Where did you copy and paste this from ?

According to charity navigator the Clinton foundation is a fine well run charity

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

This is what that same organization had to say before the Clintons cleaned up the books for her presidential run

“Clinton Foundation executives have been sparring with a nonprofit watchdog over whether the charity should remain on a "watch list" of philanthropies with potential problems.

Charity Navigator, a nonprofit that ranks charities and purports to provide a "guide to intelligent giving," has claimed the Clinton Foundation attempted to "strong-arm" its way off the list by demanding meetings with board members and insisting the watchdog amend its criteria, New York Magazine reported Tuesday.

"We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business modelcan not be accurately captured," Charity Navigator wrote of the Clinton Foundation, which it reportedly added to its list of suspicious philanthropies March 13”


Also, I’m not sure why you’re questioning the numbers in the article, they’re directly from their tax filings. You can find multiple outlets that reported the same numbers. Even better, look up their tax records yourself.



........


Again, please continue this in the lounge.

 

[aitkenmike]

Not this shit again. The 6% figure is what was granted to other charities e.g. if they paid $100,000 to World Vision to do a project that they were better suited to. It doesn't count the cost of any charitable work done themselves.

For example, if a charity designed to dig wells in African villages spent 100% of their money on digging wells themselves, their charitable grants figure would be 0%. Would they indicate they were a shitty charity?

 

[44nutman]

!!! Lordy there might be tapes!

Trumps lawyers have been terrible through this whole situation.

 

[waiguoren]

From the Washington Post:

The Michael Cohen raid could backfire. This story shows how.

It will be an ironic development if overzealous law enforcement officials manage to make Trump something that he seldom succeeds in making himself — a sympathetic character.

Spoiler: The Michael Cohen raid could backfire. This story shows how.

By Gary Abernathy April 12 at 7:48 PM
Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The Post, is publisher and editor of the (Hillsboro, Ohio) Times-Gazette.

HILLSBORO, Ohio

Unlike many who often defend President Trump, I don’t always see political motivations behind special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. But the raid on the home and office of Trump’s longtime personal attorney brought flashbacks of a local incident with numerous parallels.

In 2011, Drew Hastings was elected mayor of Hillsboro. With no political experience, he was best known until then as a developer and an entertainer. Some of his social media posts have been condemned as insensitive at best, racist at worst. He uses salty language that has been called inappropriate for a public official. He was investigated for crimes in a probe he called a “witch hunt,” and his critics say he uses his office to enrich himself. His stated goal is to disrupt an entrenched political system.

The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Try 1 month for $1
Sound familiar?

Hastings’s name might ring a bell. He spent most of his adult life living in Los Angeles and working as a stand-up comedian with some national success, including a Comedy Central special, two appearances on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and regular guest spots on the nationally syndicated “Bob & Tom Show.”

He became disillusioned with La La Land — “At the end of the day the sun doesn’t set in L.A., it just gives up and drops into the ocean with a bitter hiss,” he says in one routine — and in 2006 he bought a small farm near Hillsboro. He began purchasing run-down properties in town to either flip or rent (including office space leased by the Times-Gazette). Eventually, he ran for mayor.

Hastings was successful at the ballot box but a lightning rod for controversy. One of his first orders of business was disbanding Hillsboro’s 156-year-old fire department in favor of a contract with a nearby fire district, a process that involved noisy council meetings packed with opponents.

After upsetting a number of other apple carts in his new hometown, he was reelected in 2015. But shortly after, he faced a criminal investigation based on evidence gathered by his own police department, with which he had feuded since taking office. The probe — soon led by a special prosecutor from the state auditor’s office — resulted in four felony indictments and became a national story.

“I’m only guilty of trying to represent our citizens without the consent of an established political structure,” Hastings told the Associated Press, in Trump-like fashion.

The Hastings investigation started out looking into legitimate questions about a $500 refund he had received from the city in connection with suspicions of forgery, as well as a “theft in office” allegation over the use of city dumpsters. Citizens following all this didn’t know what to think. Law enforcement had the benefit of the doubt — until a late-night raid on an apparently unrelated matter tipped public opinion in Hastings’s favor.

In February 2016, law enforcement officials armed with a warrant conducted a 10 p.m. raid on Hastings’s Hillsboro home, where his visiting father-in-law was ordered out of the house into the freezing night. The purpose of the raid, according to the search warrant, was to look for evidence of residency — one of the eventual charges against him was election falsification for not living where he said he lived — with investigators meticulously documenting the underwear of Hastings’s wife, their young child’s toys, and even the serial number of their commode. When the raid was reported, it was met with general outrage.

Likewise, the raid on Trump’s personal attorney, apparently to probe issues far removed from the original Russian interference and collusion mandate, could well be a tipping point in Trump’s favor. Most people, regardless of their political leanings, don’t like it when it appears an investigation has become more personal than professional, veering off the beaten path to find something — anything — just to claim a win.

At Hastings’s trial, the judge threw out two of the four charges and a jury unanimously acquitted Hastings of the others. He’s still the mayor. Not surprisingly, Hastings sees in Trump a kindred spirit trying to make systemic changes against a “deep state” resistance that uses criminal investigations and political-correctness police to maintain the status quo.

As long as the investigation by Mueller and the actions of law enforcement stayed focused on their primary mandate, they were on solid ground. Now, after the raid on Trump’s personal attorney, it appears to many that they are merely looking for a win on something — anything.

It will be an ironic development if overzealous law enforcement officials manage to make Trump something that he seldom succeeds in making himself — a sympathetic character.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Oh cake, you talk a big one. Back it up. Let’s start here.

Ian Telfer

The Times story noted that between 2009 and 2013, Telfer donated US$2.35 million to Clinton’s foundation. This coincided directly with the period in which Rosatom gradually took control of Uranium One. Telfer was Uranium One’s chairman at the time.


Explain why this gentleman “donated” millions to the Clintons sham charity.


And please realize posting his claim of “I had already promised to donate” holds zero weight. Also, as reported below by the nyt, the tax break excuse is BS.



This is just one of many, so let’s begin.


.....


Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

the foundation said that the partnership was created to allow Canadian donors to get a tax benefit.

However, interviews with tax lawyers and officials in Canada cast doubt on assertions that the partnership was necessary to confer a tax benefit; an examination shows that for many donors it was not needed, and in any event, since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break. Also, it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said.

The partnership, established in 2007, effectively shielded the identities of its donors — and the amount they gave — by allowing them to bundle their money together in the offshoot Canadian partnership before it was passed along to Clinton Foundation programs. The foundation, in turn, names only the partnership as the source of those funds.

In response to questions about the tax-break rationale for the formation of the offshoot charity, the Canadian tax experts pointed out that donations to the partnership from other charities and foundations would not have been eligible for tax breaks. That is because the donors who gave money to those other charities had already received their tax benefit. Records show that those nonprofit groups accounted for about half of the donations to the Canadian partnership.

For example, the Uranium One chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make his donations to the partnership. Mr. Telfer would have received a tax benefit when he first put his money into Fernwood, not when Fernwood donated to the partnership.

“There would only be one tax benefit no matter how many charities it passes through,” said Mark Blumberg, a tax lawyer in Toronto.

The partnership might have been necessary to provide a tax benefit to early individual donors, but not since 2010. That year, the Clinton Foundation was specially designated by the Canadian government, allowing Canadians to write off donations given directly to it.

“It makes no tax difference,” Mr. Blumberg said, “whether a donor gives the money to a Canadian charity or the Clinton Foundation.”


Six days earlier, in response to questions from The Times, the foundation turned over records that by law must be made public and that made clear that the Clinton Foundation had attracted a $31.3 million donor. The records contradicted the foundation’s repeated assertions that a $31.3 million line item on its tax return was an aggregate of small contributions. It initially refused to identify the donor. But with the foundation’s activities drawing scrutiny amid Mrs. Clinton’s first run for president, the foundation reversed course

That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now.

Oh cake, you talk a big one. Back it up. Let’s start here.

Ian Telfer

The Times story noted that between 2009 and 2013, Telfer donated US$2.35 million to Clinton’s foundation. This coincided directly with the period in which Rosatom gradually took control of Uranium One. Telfer was Uranium One’s chairman at the time.


Explain why this gentleman “donated” millions to the Clintons sham charity.


And please realize posting his claim of “I had already promised to donate” holds zero weight. Also, as reported below by the nyt, the tax break excuse is BS.



This is just one of many, so let’s begin.


.....


Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.

the foundation said that the partnership was created to allow Canadian donors to get a tax benefit.

However, interviews with tax lawyers and officials in Canada cast doubt on assertions that the partnership was necessary to confer a tax benefit; an examination shows that for many donors it was not needed, and in any event, since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break. Also, it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said.

The partnership, established in 2007, effectively shielded the identities of its donors — and the amount they gave — by allowing them to bundle their money together in the offshoot Canadian partnership before it was passed along to Clinton Foundation programs. The foundation, in turn, names only the partnership as the source of those funds.

In response to questions about the tax-break rationale for the formation of the offshoot charity, the Canadian tax experts pointed out that donations to the partnership from other charities and foundations would not have been eligible for tax breaks. That is because the donors who gave money to those other charities had already received their tax benefit. Records show that those nonprofit groups accounted for about half of the donations to the Canadian partnership.

For example, the Uranium One chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make his donations to the partnership. Mr. Telfer would have received a tax benefit when he first put his money into Fernwood, not when Fernwood donated to the partnership.

“There would only be one tax benefit no matter how many charities it passes through,” said Mark Blumberg, a tax lawyer in Toronto.

The partnership might have been necessary to provide a tax benefit to early individual donors, but not since 2010. That year, the Clinton Foundation was specially designated by the Canadian government, allowing Canadians to write off donations given directly to it.

“It makes no tax difference,” Mr. Blumberg said, “whether a donor gives the money to a Canadian charity or the Clinton Foundation.”


Six days earlier, in response to questions from The Times, the foundation turned over records that by law must be made public and that made clear that the Clinton Foundation had attracted a $31.3 million donor. The records contradicted the foundation’s repeated assertions that a $31.3 million line item on its tax return was an aggregate of small contributions. It initially refused to identify the donor. But with the foundation’s activities drawing scrutiny amid Mrs. Clinton’s first run for president, the foundation reversed course

That leaves about $20 million from donors whose identities remain a mystery, at least for now.

Bob, we went over Ian Telfer, and all of the Uranium One donations, back in February:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-4#post-138929163

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-5#post-138937237

As for Telfer giving, just look at Wikipedia to find out how much money Telfer has given in charitable donations:

Telfer donated $25 million to the University of Ottawa’s School of Management, which at the time was the largest donation ever given to the University of Ottawa (a known training academy for Hillary's deep state operatives, right?)
Telfer and his wife donated $1 million to West Vancouver’s Collingwood School between 2009 and 2013
Telfer has also been a supporter of The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, donating $500,000 to the foundation in 2014

In sum, we have been over and over this whole thing, and how you have eaten so much right wing bullshit that you now seem to have shit for brains. Here a couple of links that you should book mark:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-it-true-truth-explained-obama-a8030116.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Or maybe you should just get the following tattooed on your hand:

"Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia"

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Aw, is that Salty Fawlty being a bitch again?

Salty,

Just like Trump, if you feel threatened enough to start making up little names for people, you've ceded the debate to childishness

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

From the Washington Post:

The Michael Cohen raid could backfire. This story shows how.

It will be an ironic development if overzealous law enforcement officials manage to make Trump something that he seldom succeeds in making himself — a sympathetic character.

Spoiler: The Michael Cohen raid could backfire. This story shows how.

By Gary Abernathy April 12 at 7:48 PM
Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The Post, is publisher and editor of the (Hillsboro, Ohio) Times-Gazette.

HILLSBORO, Ohio

Unlike many who often defend President Trump, I don’t always see political motivations behind special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. But the raid on the home and office of Trump’s longtime personal attorney brought flashbacks of a local incident with numerous parallels.

In 2011, Drew Hastings was elected mayor of Hillsboro. With no political experience, he was best known until then as a developer and an entertainer. Some of his social media posts have been condemned as insensitive at best, racist at worst. He uses salty language that has been called inappropriate for a public official. He was investigated for crimes in a probe he called a “witch hunt,” and his critics say he uses his office to enrich himself. His stated goal is to disrupt an entrenched political system.

The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Try 1 month for $1
Sound familiar?

Hastings’s name might ring a bell. He spent most of his adult life living in Los Angeles and working as a stand-up comedian with some national success, including a Comedy Central special, two appearances on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and regular guest spots on the nationally syndicated “Bob & Tom Show.”

He became disillusioned with La La Land — “At the end of the day the sun doesn’t set in L.A., it just gives up and drops into the ocean with a bitter hiss,” he says in one routine — and in 2006 he bought a small farm near Hillsboro. He began purchasing run-down properties in town to either flip or rent (including office space leased by the Times-Gazette). Eventually, he ran for mayor.

Hastings was successful at the ballot box but a lightning rod for controversy. One of his first orders of business was disbanding Hillsboro’s 156-year-old fire department in favor of a contract with a nearby fire district, a process that involved noisy council meetings packed with opponents.

After upsetting a number of other apple carts in his new hometown, he was reelected in 2015. But shortly after, he faced a criminal investigation based on evidence gathered by his own police department, with which he had feuded since taking office. The probe — soon led by a special prosecutor from the state auditor’s office — resulted in four felony indictments and became a national story.

“I’m only guilty of trying to represent our citizens without the consent of an established political structure,” Hastings told the Associated Press, in Trump-like fashion.

The Hastings investigation started out looking into legitimate questions about a $500 refund he had received from the city in connection with suspicions of forgery, as well as a “theft in office” allegation over the use of city dumpsters. Citizens following all this didn’t know what to think. Law enforcement had the benefit of the doubt — until a late-night raid on an apparently unrelated matter tipped public opinion in Hastings’s favor.

In February 2016, law enforcement officials armed with a warrant conducted a 10 p.m. raid on Hastings’s Hillsboro home, where his visiting father-in-law was ordered out of the house into the freezing night. The purpose of the raid, according to the search warrant, was to look for evidence of residency — one of the eventual charges against him was election falsification for not living where he said he lived — with investigators meticulously documenting the underwear of Hastings’s wife, their young child’s toys, and even the serial number of their commode. When the raid was reported, it was met with general outrage.

Likewise, the raid on Trump’s personal attorney, apparently to probe issues far removed from the original Russian interference and collusion mandate, could well be a tipping point in Trump’s favor. Most people, regardless of their political leanings, don’t like it when it appears an investigation has become more personal than professional, veering off the beaten path to find something — anything — just to claim a win.

At Hastings’s trial, the judge threw out two of the four charges and a jury unanimously acquitted Hastings of the others. He’s still the mayor. Not surprisingly, Hastings sees in Trump a kindred spirit trying to make systemic changes against a “deep state” resistance that uses criminal investigations and political-correctness police to maintain the status quo.

As long as the investigation by Mueller and the actions of law enforcement stayed focused on their primary mandate, they were on solid ground. Now, after the raid on Trump’s personal attorney, it appears to many that they are merely looking for a win on something — anything.

It will be an ironic development if overzealous law enforcement officials manage to make Trump something that he seldom succeeds in making himself — a sympathetic character.

So Mueller finding evidence of Cohen committing crimes and referring that to the FBI and a US Attorney (which probably would have come out from Avennatti's work anyway) is him trying to get a "win on something?" Did you forget about the 13 Russians that resulted in action from the WH, the 3 guilty pleas from people in Trump's campaign, Manafort up shit creek without a paddle, Erick Prince looking really guilty, and Roger Stone looking guilty?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

So Mueller finding evidence of Cohen committing crimes and referring that to the FBI and a US Attorney (which probably would have come out from Avennatti's work anyway) is him trying to get a "win on something?" Did you forget about the 13 Russians that resulted in action from the WH, the 3 guilty pleas from people in Trump's campaign, Manafort up shit creek without a paddle, Erick Prince looking really guilty, and Roger Stone looking guilty?

But yeah we should just push that aside because of something that happened with a mayor in Ohio.

The effort to derail the investigation of a crook will be a thrill ride to future historians.

I'm beginning to think that if he doesn't get impeached he'll be very lucky.

 

[waiguoren]

So Mueller finding evidence of Cohen committing crimes and referring that to the FBI and a US Attorney (which probably would have come out from Avennatti's work anyway) is him trying to get a "win on something?" Did you forget about the 13 Russians that resulted in action from the WH, the 3 guilty pleas from people in Trump's campaign, Manafort up shit creek without a paddle, Erick Prince looking really guilty, and Roger Stone looking guilty?

I think you should read the piece more carefully. The author of the piece was referring to appearances of impropriety. He did not claim that the raid was improper. He was making a political point, and I think it's an excellent one. Right or wrong, this kind of raid fuels deep state conspiracy mongering.

 

[waiguoren]

Just like Trump, if you feel threatened enough to start making up little names for people, you've ceded the debate to childishness

As far as I know, @Hans Gruber is the man responsible for giving Salty @Fawlty his name. There is a long and well-known tradition in the War Room of Salty @Fawlty using bitch tactics such as attempting (poorly) to attack other posters without tagging said posters. He usually does this because his arguments are weak and he knows he is wrong.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

As far as I know, @Hans Gruber is the man responsible for giving Salty @Fawlty his name. There is a long and well-known tradition in the War Room of Salty @Fawlty using bitch tactics such as attempting (poorly) to attack other posters without tagging said posters. He usually does this because his arguments are weak and he knows he is wrong.

Who started the nickname isn't important. You know it isn't, so there's no reason to bring it up. What are you defending? Being childish, is that what you're defending, seriously?

 

[bobgeese]

Bob, we went over Ian Telfer, and all of the Uranium One donations, back in February:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-4#post-138929163

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/c...estigation-v-14.3716441/page-5#post-138937237

As for Telfer giving, just look at Wikipedia to find out how much money Telfer has given in charitable donations:

Telfer donated $25 million to the University of Ottawa’s School of Management, which at the time was the largest donation ever given to the University of Ottawa (a known training academy for Hillary's deep state operatives, right?)
Telfer and his wife donated $1 million to West Vancouver’s Collingwood School between 2009 and 2013
Telfer has also been a supporter of The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, donating $500,000 to the foundation in 2014

In sum, we have been over and over this whole thing, and how you have eaten so much right wing bullshit that you now seem to have shit for brains. Here a couple of links that you should book mark:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-it-true-truth-explained-obama-a8030116.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Or maybe you should just get the following tattooed on your hand:

"Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia"

How does him donating to other causes invalidate the nyt reporting, the timing of it, and the attempts to lie about it?


Oh, it’s funny how you neglected to mention that $25 million he “donated” bought his name being scrawled atop the building, but no, he would never pay for influence...


Let’s continue in the lounge,

 

[waiguoren]

Who started the nickname isn't important. You know it isn't, so there's no reason to bring it up. What are you defending? Being childish, is that what you're defending, seriously?

I'm defending the action of calling out a bitch when you see one. That's an important thing to do.

Salty @Fawlty has a history of bitch behavior on these forums. @Limbo Pete, for example, is just as wacky as @Fawlty in his views but at least he's upfront when he wants to talk trash.

 

[7437]

I think you should read the piece more carefully. The author of the piece was referring to appearances of impropriety. He did not claim that the raid was improper. He was making a political point, and I think it's an excellent one. Right or wrong, this kind of raid fuels deep state conspiracy mongering.

I doubt anyone prone to deep state conspiracy mongering wasnt already in trumps corner

 

[ralphc1]

!!! Lordy there might be tapes!

I doubt there are "tapes". Nobody uses tapes anymore. They are electronic recordings that Cohen was said to have played back at meetings as a reminder of what was said at previous meetings. It would explain why the no announce searches conducted at all the locations at once instead of ordering the information to be turned over. After the gaps in the Nixon tapes it would be prudent. There may be collusion evidence on the recordings of use in the Russian investigation but also in other cases like the payoffs to silence stories.

I have posted before that I was once a naive Nixon supporter who thought he was being set up in the Watergate break in. When the tapes came out I was forced to see reality as were many other Nixon supporters. I never thought any politician would allow recordings to be made again. Trump might have assumed that his lawyer was safe from searches and electronic media can be erased much quicker.

I'll never forget when I saw John Dean refer to the tapes. I knew they would prove something one way or another.