Urine Trouble (Mueller Thread v. 16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you're saying that Trump should have assumed that the Obama State Department/Homeland security is completely incompetent and incapable of doing their job?

I don't totally disagree with this sentiment.
 
I don't see how it is critical to the Mueller investigation. If you are suggesting the DOJ, State, Homeland allowed her access so that they could frame Trump some how then they failed at their job because nothing about this meeting was made public until after the election. What exactly are you implying here? If it is I don't know then why didn't the House Intel committee investigate why she was her during their investigation?

At the end of the day it is the responsibility of the Trump organization to implement and follow a basic compliance protocol and if they did, they would had known not to meet with her.


Ever consider they only didn’t because she was kicked out of the meeting after several minutes?

If there had been any sort of agreement, you’re telling us it wouldn’t have been publicized?

Come on now...


Again, why would they let her in?
 
Ollie was being naughty in Nicaragua because Ronnie told him to.
Where is your evidence for this?

If such evidence existed, the results of that investigation would have been much different.

You made an assertion, now you must back up that assertion. If you're unable to do so, then that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


That's alright, I'll wait.
 
President Trump has not been found guilty of any crime. There is no evidence that President Trump has committed any crime.

If you think you do have evidence of President Trump committing a crime, you should forward that to Robert Mueller. He hasn't been able to get jack-shit done other than indict some underlings on some paper process infractions and minor tax code violations.
Explain the mystery payoffs to Cohen and from China? Leaving aside the obvious obstruction and conspiracy.
 
Where is your evidence for this?

If such evidence existed, the results of that investigation would have been much different.

You made an assertion, now you must back up that assertion. If you're unable to do so, then that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


That's alright, I'll wait.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...436-adaa-86e61e996e35/?utm_term=.479032d44b9f

NORTH: REAGAN 'KNEW EVERYTHING'

By George Lardner Jr. October 20, 1991

Oliver L. North, in a new book called "Under Fire," says he is now convinced that Ronald Reagan "knew everything" about the Iran-contra scandal when he was president and that the White House began an elaborate coverup to protect him several weeks before the scandal broke in 1986.

North accused Reagan of being untruthful in his memoirs and said he has no doubt that the former president was not only fully aware of the diversion of Iran arms sales profits to aid the contra rebels in Nicaragua, but also that he approved it "enthusiastically."

In an excerpt published in this week's editions of Time magazine, North suggested that the notorious "diversion" was itself a "diversion," made public to draw attention away from "what else the President and his top advisers had known about and approved."

{<jordan}
 
Shocking. A trump family member was lying
 
Selling weapons to Iran who had just taken our citizens hostage to fund an illegal rightwing revolution, no big deal for Republicans. I did get a kick out of Reagans alzheimers defense though.
the original "ahh du nhat rekhall"
 
Explain the mystery payoffs to Cohen and from China? Leaving aside the obvious obstruction and conspiracy.

Cohen=/= President Trump

Different people are capable of different thoughts, and possessing different motivations. This is true even if two people happen to have a working relationship together.

I'm somewhat astounded I even have to say this.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...436-adaa-86e61e996e35/?utm_term=.479032d44b9f

NORTH: REAGAN 'KNEW EVERYTHING'

By George Lardner Jr. October 20, 1991

Oliver L. North, in a new book called "Under Fire," says he is now convinced that Ronald Reagan "knew everything" about the Iran-contra scandal when he was president and that the White House began an elaborate coverup to protect him several weeks before the scandal broke in 1986.

North accused Reagan of being untruthful in his memoirs and said he has no doubt that the former president was not only fully aware of the diversion of Iran arms sales profits to aid the contra rebels in Nicaragua, but also that he approved it "enthusiastically."

In an excerpt published in this week's editions of Time magazine, North suggested that the notorious "diversion" was itself a "diversion," made public to draw attention away from "what else the President and his top advisers had known about and approved."

{<jordan}

Oliver North claiming something years after the fact, isn't any kind of evidence.

This excerpt of irrelevant data also doesn't prove your assertion:

"Ollie was being naughty in Nicaragua because Ronnie told him to."
-FalseDawn

Oliver North didn't even assert that in the quote you provided.

Your assertion is wrong in every possible sense. That takes some effort, congratulations!
 
Oliver North claiming something years after the fact, isn't any kind of evidence.

This excerpt of irrelevant data also doesn't prove your assertion:

"Ollie was being naughty in Nicaragua because Ronnie told him to."
-FalseDawn

Oliver North didn't even assert that in the quote you provided.

Your assertion is wrong in every possible sense. That takes some effort, congratulations!

North accused Reagan of being untruthful in his memoirs and said he has no doubt that the former president was not only fully aware of the diversion of Iran arms sales profits to aid the contra rebels in Nicaragua, but also that he approved it "enthusiastically."

Bynh5xf.gif


Ollie North is taking the fall for Reagan: "Obviously he's truthful! How could he not be! He's a general!"

Ollie North says Reagan knew:"He's untrustworthy! Nobody cares what he has to say! Was he there? He's not truthful!"
 
Setting stories straight is a sure sign of a conspiracy. If it was a nothingburger then there was no reason to get everyone on the same page.

Only a moron, Conservative
I disagree, that's too stark. Getting everyone on the same page could just mean they don't want to sound inconsistent and thus looking like they have something to hide when nothing is there.
I don't buy it though.

As for bagging on conservatives, these people are NOT conservatives.
 
Cohen=/= President Trump

Different people are capable of different thoughts, and possessing different motivations. This is true even if two people happen to have a working relationship together.

I'm somewhat astounded I even have to say this.
Cohen is a the bagman for the Trump families bribes, you would have to be blind or delusional not to see it. How about China payoff?
 
Holy shit, you finally admitted that Trump did something wrong!

The dick is gone from your mouth! Hallelujah!

<Dylan>
It's only a crime if you get busted, otherwise it's just fine.

In any right wing extremist battle, there's nothing seemingly more honorable than victory, even for those without honor.
 
<TrumpWrong1>

Ollie was being naughty in Nicaragua.

Ollie North =/= Ronald Reagan.

Are you starting to see what the conclusion of all of this is yet? It won't be the Watergate fantasy you hold out hope for.
It has strong parallels. Reagan, who I loved, made his interests clear (Jeez, Ollie, I sure wish we could do something about those Sandinistas!) and then looked the other way.
See the parallel?
 
It's only a crime if you get busted, otherwise it's just fine.

In any right wing extremist battle, there's nothing seemingly more honorable than victory, even for those without honor.
That's why I said he didn't know what Iran-Contra was lmao. It's fairly widespread knowledge that North took the fall for Dementia Ron, and it's not like we can't go back and watch North's testimony on it.

Ronnie approved that shit and got off on a technicality because his boy covered for him.
 
North accused Reagan of being untruthful in his memoirs and said he has no doubt that the former president was not only fully aware of the diversion of Iran arms sales profits to aid the contra rebels in Nicaragua, but also that he approved it "enthusiastically."

Bynh5xf.gif


Ollie North is taking the fall for Reagan: "Obviously he's truthful! How could he not be! He's a general!"

Ollie North says Reagan knew:"He's untrustworthy! Nobody cares what he has to say! Was he there? He's not truthful!"

Nothing he said is any kind of provable evidence. Nothing he said, proves your assertion.

You can keep reposting that text all you like, nothing there proves your assertion.

Unless you can provide actual evidence that Reagan explicitly told Olivier North to engage in the activities of the Iran-Contra scandal, your assertion is wrong, and my argument stands.
 
Nothing he said is any kind of provable evidence. Nothing he said, proves your assertion.

You can keep reposting that text all you like, nothing there proves your assertion.

Unless you can provide actual evidence that Reagan explicitly told Olivier North to engage in the activities of the Iran-Contra scandal, your assertion is wrong, and my argument stands.

You want proof to a standard higher than any court in the land, and you think that's reasonable.

Fucking lol bro, get a grip. Ronnie knew, get over it.

<DisgustingHHH>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top