The War Room Lounge v.8: Conor was Framed by the Deep State Edition

[Black Helicopters]

bobgeese is a rapist.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

You’re attempting to defend the indefensible.


The Clintons have been taking money and favors to peddle foreign influence into American politics for a LONG time.

Apologists like you @HomerThompson @Quipling and @Jack V Savage have bent over for them for far too long. How can any of you pretend to have an ounce of self respect when the Clintons have been doing the exact same shit people like Paul Manafort are now being locked up for.



PS Everything I posted in the other thread was money traced to the Clintons, and lies told by the Clintons to cover up that money, by the NYT.

PPS Justin Gathe is terrible. Heart only gets you so far.

Your acceptance of and use of incoherent arguments, providing no evidence, arguing counterfactuals, being incapable of remembering or incorporating facts into your worldview, and having low intelligence makes you the perfect receptacle for the conspiracy theories and nonsense that Trump was able to use to build up his base.

You remind me of the kind of guy who James Randi was referring to when he was talking about people who believe in psychics, mediums, and people who claim to have ESP or can use chi to win fights, etc.,:

"The public really doesn't listen when they are being told straight forward facts, they would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance of the lies." James Randi

 

[bobgeese]

Your acceptance of and use of incoherent arguments, providing no evidence, arguing counterfactuals, being incapable of remembering or incorporating facts into your worldview, and having low intelligence makes you the perfect receptacle for the conspiracy theories and nonsense that Trump was able to use to build up his base.

You remind me of the kind of guy who James Randi was referring to when he was talking about people who believe in psychics, mediums, and people who claim to have ESP or can use chi to win fights, etc.,:

"The public really doesn't listen when they are being told straight forward facts, they would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance of the lies." James Randi

Again, another cake post full of insults, devoid of facts. This is why nobody reads your posts.



Here more specific instances of Clintons receiving money for favor. Maybe @HomerThompson wants to come assist you in defending the indefensible.





WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.


For instance,


Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone’s charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Again, another cake post full of insults, devoid of facts. This is why nobody reads your posts.



Here more specific instances of Clintons receiving money for favor. Maybe @HomerThompson wants to come assist you in defending the indefensible.





WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.


For instance,


Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone’s charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

Bob, if nobody read my posts, that would mean that you were not reading my posts, not responding to my posts, and were not liking the posts of other right wingers responding to my posts.

Didn't think that insult through did you?

And this latest post just proves my point about you, you don't even know what your are arguing about.

Our conversation was about uranium one and you were tasked to explain how Hillary Clinton could have made that deal when "Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson," which is what the whole issue centers around.

Could she have had "ethics challenges if elected president?" It is possible, about something else other than uranium one, but not uranium one.

And as far as the possibility of her being guilty of corruption in her role as Secretary of State, don't you think that if there were good evidence of it that Sessions and Trump's appointees at the DOJ would be tasked to, and would be thrilled to, pursue her after all of the lock her up chants during Trump's campaign, and all of the accusations of Clinton corruption from the right wing since the early 1990's? The bottom line is that Bill had his own special investigation while he was president, and Hillary was investigated about anything and everything from 2012-2016, and what came out of all of that: Monica Lewinsky.

 

[Trotsky]

bobgeese is a rapist.

I know principle isn't necessarily your thing, but you should maybe not use that jab arbitrarily considering the board has at least three legitimate sexual predators: (1) a guy who has openly talked about being extremely attracted to teenagers, (2) a guy who constantly and repeatedly morally defends having sex with girls aged 11-16 so long as they've hit puberty, and (3) another poster who has repeatedly said that drunk girls deserve to get raped and were asking for it by getting blackout wasted.

So, yeah, maybe don't water down that moniker.

 

[Black Helicopters]

I know principle isn't necessarily your thing, but you should maybe not use that jab arbitrarily considering the board has at least three legitimate sexual predators: (1) a guy who has openly talked about being extremely attracted to teenagers, (2) a guy who constantly and repeatedly morally defends having sex with girls aged 11-16 so long as they've hit puberty, and (3) another poster who has repeatedly said that drunk girls deserve to get raped and were asking for it by getting blackout wasted.

So, yeah, maybe don't water down that moniker.

You can try to be more subtle when you're talking about me

 

[HomerThompson]

I know principle isn't necessarily your thing, but you should maybe not use that jab arbitrarily considering the board has at least three legitimate sexual predators: (1) a guy who has openly talked about being extremely attracted to teenagers, (2) a guy who constantly and repeatedly morally defends having sex with girls aged 11-16 so long as they've hit puberty, and (3) another poster who has repeatedly said that drunk girls deserve to get raped and were asking for it by getting blackout wasted.

So, yeah, maybe don't water down that moniker.

@bobgeese posts that same post about Bill Clinton all the time, and randomly, in threads. It's a play on that.

 

[HomerThompson]

I searched, "Bill Clinton rapist" and bob geese's username, and came back with 80 results. Fucking 80.

Here's but one of them:

That's because Bill Clinton is a rapist.

 

[Trotsky]

I mean....Bill Clinton is a rapist, as far as I'm concerned.

You can play legal semantics, but the guy is a predator.

 

[HomerThompson]

I mean....Bill Clinton is a rapist, as far as I'm concerned.

You can play legal semantics, but the guy is a predator.

Would you bring it up 80 times in unrelated threads to derail the thread, though?

 

[Trotsky]

Would you bring it up 80 times in unrelated threads to derail the thread, though?

No, probably not, but I lack the Goose's uncanny boldness

 

[bobgeese]

Bob, if nobody read my posts, that would mean that you were not reading my posts, not responding to my posts, and were not liking the posts of other right wingers responding to my posts.

Didn't think that insult through did you?

And this latest post just proves my point about you, you don't even know what your are arguing about.

Our conversation was about uranium one and you were tasked to explain how Hillary Clinton could have made that deal when "Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson," which is what the whole issue centers around.

Could she have had "ethics challenges if elected president?" It is possible, about something else other than uranium one, but not uranium one.

And as far as the possibility of her being guilty of corruption in her role as Secretary of State, don't you think that if there were good evidence of it that Sessions and Trump's appointees at the DOJ would be tasked to, and would be thrilled to, pursue her after all of the lock her up chants during Trump's campaign, and all of the accusations of Clinton corruption from the right wing since the early 1990's? The bottom line is that Bill had his own special investigation while he was president, and Hillary was investigated about anything and everything from 2012-2016, and what came out of all of that: Monica Lewinsky.

Ok, this is bordering on an adult post.


You ask me to prove the uranium one “conspiracy”. So first, we have to define that.



I am submitting to that the Clintons have been taking money and favors for pushing their political weight around for a LONG time.



I am also stating that people paid money to the Clintons in an attempt to have them use their influence in the decision making processes involved with UO.

I laid out millions of dollars that flowed from those people with interests in UO, to the Clintons, as well as the Clintons attempt to lie about it, in entirely separate articles.

Since it is impossible to singlehandedly prove the claim sitting here on my couch, beyond the actual tracing on millions to the Clintons, and them lying about it, as I already have. The most I can do is point to other proven times the Clintons did the same thing.


Hence my last post, which you ducked, about them accepting money from black water and starting working on favors THE NEXT FREAKING DAY.



Nothing I’m claiming is not already proven, and reported on, by left leaning sources like the nyt.

You’re stuck defending the exact people that have brought the level of shady politics in Washington to the point you feign outrage over daily.

You were saying?

 

[bobgeese]

bobgeese is a rapist.

See gentleman, that’s fine shitposting.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

bobgeese is a rapist.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Ok, this is bordering on an adult post.


You ask me to prove the uranium one “conspiracy”. So first, we have to define that.



I am submitting to that the Clintons have been taking money and favors for pushing their political weight around for a LONG time.



I am also stating that people paid money to the Clintons in an attempt to have them use their influence in the decision making processes involved with UO.

I laid out millions of dollars that flowed from those people with interests in UO, to the Clintons, as well as the Clintons attempt to lie about it, in entirely separate articles.

Since it is impossible to singlehandedly prove the claim sitting here on my couch, beyond the actual tracing on millions to the Clintons, and them lying about it, as I already have. The most I can do is point to other proven times the Clintons did the same thing.


Hence my last post, which you ducked, about them accepting money from black water and starting working on favors THE NEXT FREAKING DAY.



Nothing I’m claiming is not already proven, and reported on, by left leaning sources like the nyt.

You’re stuck defending the exact people that have brought the level of shady politics in Washington to the point you feign outrage over daily.

You were saying?

Exactly, you have no evidence of a uranium one conspiracy, you are arguing that Hillary can "just talk to some people" to slough off the 9 high level people she would have had to influence, and you just slough off that there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia, so you are trying to throw whatever else you can at the wall with the hope that something will stick, with the hope that I don't have object permanence about the focus of our conversation and that I will play whack a mole with every side issue (e.g., the blackwater thing) you bring up. You believe the conspiracy theory and will not read anything that lays out the reasons why that conspiracy is not plausible.

As for the blackwater thing, again you offer it like it is a slam dunk case of Clinton corruption, but if that were the case, then why isn't the DOJ going after her? It is Trump's DOJ! Sessions is his guy who campaigned with him, he fired Sally Yates and put Rosenstein in there, he fired Comey and put Wray in there, etc., why aren't they taking the opportunity to punish Hillary for abusing her office if there is legitimate evidence that she did? Hillary literally has the entire federal government stacked against her, but it seems that all of that stuff was just right wing "Hillary is corrupt" pareidolia with no legitimate evidence, but meanwhile the DOJ has enough evidence about Manafort and Gates to get Gates to plead guilty and flip, and they have enough evidence about Cohen that the DOJ took the audacious step of raiding the POTUS' personal attorney's office, home, and hotel. You can say I am being hypocritical about corruption, but I certainly don't see it that way, and I see you criticizing Hillary for corruption while simultaneously condoning the crimes committed by people close to Trump, which is obvious hypocrisy.

 

[bobgeese]

Exactly, you have no evidence of a uranium one conspiracy, you are arguing that Hillary can "just talk to some people" to slough off the 9 high level people she would have had to influence, and you just slough off that there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia, so you are trying to throw whatever else you can at the wall with the hope that something will stick, with the hope that I don't have object permanence about the focus of our conversation and that I will play whack a mole with every side issue (e.g., the blackwater thing) you bring up. You believe the conspiracy theory and will not read anything that lays out the reasons why that conspiracy is not plausible.

As for the blackwater thing, again you offer it like it is a slam dunk case of Clinton corruption, but if that were the case, then why isn't the DOJ going after her? It is Trump's DOJ! Sessions is his guy who campaigned with him, he fired Sally Yates and put Rosenstein in there, he fired Comey and put Wray in there, etc., why aren't they taking the opportunity to punish Hillary for abusing her office if there is legitimate evidence that she did? Hillary literally has the entire federal government stacked against her, but it seems that all of that stuff was just right wing "Hillary is corrupt" pareidolia with no legitimate evidence, but meanwhile the DOJ has enough evidence about Manafort and Gates to get Gates to plead guilty and flip, and they have enough evidence about Cohen that the DOJ took the audacious step of raiding the POTUS' personal attorney's office, home, and hotel. You can say I am being hypocritical about corruption, but I certainly don't see it that way, and I see you criticizing Hillary for corruption while simultaneously condoning the crimes committed by people close to Trump, which is obvious hypocrisy.

Again, don’t misrepresent my claim. My claim is backed up by by the millions of dollars traced by the nyt. If you choose to believe that money was donated out of the kindness of their hearts, you’re naive.



Also, do you not see how stupid your comparison is? They’ve known Paul Manafort was peddling foreign for a long time. Yet he was a free man. Hell they let the fuckin guy get next to the possible next future president.


The fact you would even get near the idea that if you haven’t been charged with a crime in Washington, you must be a completely innocent person, displays you’re just arguing to argue.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Again, don’t misrepresent my claim. My claim is backed up by by the millions of dollars traced by the nyt. If you choose to believe that money was donated out of the kindness of their hearts, you’re naive.



Also, do you not see how stupid your comparison is? They’ve known Paul Manafort was peddling foreign for a long time. Yet he was a free man. Hell they let the fuckin guy get next to the possible next future president.


The fact you would even get near the idea that if you haven’t been charged with a crime in Washington, you must be a completely innocent person, displays you’re just arguing to argue.

We have been over and over the donations, including other donations he made to other charities and $25 million to a university that didn't involve an international conspiracy to get uranium into Russia, but just read that tattoo 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."

And you are misrepresenting my argument (and not addressing your hypocrisy), I didn't say that one "must be a completely innocent person if you haven't been charged with a crime in Washington," I said that if the Trump DOJ thought that there was legitimate evidence based on anything you have presented as evidence of corruption then they would gleefully take her down. And it isn't like Bill and Hillary have not been investigated, if there was evidence of either of them being dirty, why is she walking in the woods without a care in the world while Trump is rage tweeting and skulking around the WH thinking of a way to fire the guy he replaced Yates with and allowed to be used as foil for the firing of Comey? Are they just that smart?

 

[senri]

Cut the shit @bobgeese , put some actual research and thought into your posts.

 

[bobgeese]

why is she walking in the woods without a care in the world

Because FBI agents changed the wording in the reports. See how easy that was.


Answer me one question.


Why did the Clintons lie about the donations as stated in the article I posted. They lied about both the identities of the donors, and their reasoning for setting up the donations in that manner (as demonstrated by the telfer tax analysis I posted).


And you act as if Hillary’s state Department didn’t approve the deal. Just because there are other agencies involved (which you’re kidding yourself if you think the Clintons don’t have friends and influence there as well) doesn’t mean she wouldn’t accept gifts and favors for her approval.

Do you even politics???

If you have 3 judges, and one gladly accepts bribes, you bribe that judge. Just because you can’t bribe all three doesn’t mean you don’t bribe any.

 

[bobgeese]

Yes, it seems you’ve both missed the multiple articles I’ve posted backing up my claim.