Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. I have no idea if the Halper stuff is true or not.  If we assume he did approach Page, Papa and Clovis then, imo, it is only a problem if he was either asked to approach them by someone in govt or if he told someone he was going to do it.  If he approached them on his own then i do not see how it could be a problem for the fbi.  If he did work with the fbi then there almost certainly has to be a paper trail.

    Also, it would be highly coincidental if the fbi based the start of their investigation on the actions of Page and Papa and Halper reached out to both of them out of the blue with little or no prior connection to them.

    9 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

    I can't believe the FBI is using informants in a criminal investigation. 

    The problem with comments like this relates to the timing.  The fbi said it started an investigation in July 2016.  All of the Halper contacts were before that.  Of course the fbi can and does use informants but if they base part of the investigation on the role of the informants then they have to disclose their use of them.  They can not ask an informant to try and get close to trump folks and not consider that the start of the investigation.  There has to be a concrete reason to ask the informant to try and get close.

  2. 13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    Which is a bigger concern for Putin: that Mueller's investigation of Manafort gets stonewalled, or that Ukraine gets some Javelins ?  

    Is that a serious question?  Arming a territory that putin wants or halting the investigation in an unrelated country that has no jurisdiction over a guy that is already indicted in the US?  

    I would also like to know how trump asked putin which he preferred and how they got ukraine to be involved in their plot.  Bat phone?  

  3. 17 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Hot Damn!!! Vince and sheeit active and trolling at the same time. What a treat. 

    We should take bets on who will have more luck today ensnaring posters who should know better. So far, it seems to be Vince with the lead. 

     

    4 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

    Amazing that little ol' surly get two Russian trolls devoted to it.

    How is it not comical that you guys have all determined that Kushner is guilty as sin, has likely flipped to mueller, is going to be indicted any day now while simultaneously the very organization that is supposedly investigating him and has all of the dirt on him just gave him top secret security clearance.

    How many times have we read that we do not know what mueller knows?  1,000?  Rosenstein was the one that called trump initially to tell him that kushners clearance was delayed.  Obviously, Rosenstein knows everything mueller knows since mueller reports to rosenstein.  You think mueller told rosenstein that he had kushner dead to rights and that he has all kinds of foreign baggage and contacts with spies and actually (at least according to some of you) led a coup to get sanctions against qatar and Rosenstein said thanks but I think we will give him security clearance anyway?  

    Actually Pods retard will probably spin this as mueller using kushner as a double agent to get trump so he gave him security clearance to throw trump off.

  4. 3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

    From the linked BBC article above:

    “The report states that Poroshenko returned from Washington and, in August or September, 2017, decided to completely end cooperation with the US agencies investigating Manafort. ”

    Poroshenko would stop cooperating in the Manafort investigation and Trump would provide Javelin missiles.

    A global two-fer: quid pro quo and obstruction of justice.  

    This might be my new favorite angle.  According to you, trump is putins bitch and there is so much dirt on trump that the russians have that he is literally being blackmailed by russia as I type.  yet, he gave missiles to ukraine (currently a sworn enemy with current hostilities with russia and putin) so that the ukraine would stop investigating Manafort who was already indicted in the US.  That is fantastic!!!!!

    Question, when does putin unleash his dirt?  Do we need to arm more countries hostile to russia before it is time?

  5. 10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    They literally met with foreign agents in the attempt to win the election.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    They did?  Who?  Maybe they stayed at one of the trump properties that you so boldly informed us were 100% full because of trump influence.

  6. Regarding Kushner, he very well may be a complete pussy and be totally inept.  I have no idea.  This is not a defense of Kushner.  I could not care less about him or what happens to him.  I do however like how so many of you can make definitive claims about his make up and character based on..........his looks?  Funny to me but irrelevant.

    On the disclosure form and clearance stuff, I am afraid that, once again, you guys have been duped by the media.  The media did not lie per se, they just twisted the facts to paint suspicious scenario as they do with all things trump.

    This is just my opinion and I realize that it will be in complete contrast to the vast majority of you but here goes.

    So much is made of Kushners 3 tries at his sf-86.  The original one was submitted with zero foreign contacts.  Kushner said the form was sent in before it was complete.  Could be total bullshit but the state dept did confirm that there were not any foreign contacts on the first submission.  In the second submission he reported all of his contacts.  For the final submission, he was not asked to change his form and he was not required to change his form but he did anyway to include the meeting with Natalia (i think my old spelling of her name looks better).  A few quotes:

    "Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer, said he believes that a disclosure of the meeting would not have been required, because Veselnitskaya is not now a government lawyer and Kushner does not have a close or continuing relationship with her."

    "Edward B. MacMahon Jr., another national security lawyer in private practice, said he “can’t imagine there’s a risk of prosecution” with Kushner."

    Also, what does the fact that he received his clearance tell us?  He has been interviewed by mueller maybe twice, has testified under oath to sic and hic (I think).  he clearly has been under the fbi microscope for over a year, yet he was given clearance.  makes me think there is nothing on him.  I would hope that if there is even a hint of criminality regarding Kushner in the investigation that he would not get any clearance.  Yet he did.  And please spare all of us the angle that trump just intervened and did this.  No possible way.  That would have been leaked to every single media outlet in the world.

  7. Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    I think he also insisted she didn’t lie about her affiliation with the Russian government. 

    And she did not.  Are you guys talking about the interview?  The one where she claimed to be an informer for the russian govt?  You realize she never said that right?  She was speaking russian and they interpreted her words in english.  Watch the WHOLE interview.  She is indignant that she never lied at all in her testimony.  

    She disclosed her relationship with the russian govt in her testimony.  She worked for the GPO early in her career and then interacted with them on a case she was defending in the US that involved a russian company.  She disclosed all of that in her testimony.

  8. 57 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    Oh, Sheeeit is back now that the pages where  he got called on Natalia I mean Nataliya are 7 pages past....

    Where did I get called out on Natalia (other than I am bad at spelling apparently?  My stance on her has not changed at all.

  9. 1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    Ugh.  If it was over market, in exchange for other stuff, that’s just bribery. Emoluments  can also happen without over market pricing. If Trump properties are leased a 100% occupancy all the time now because everyone wants to stay in a trump property because they want the approval that comes  from the president knowing that you are willing to give him money, that ain’t cool either.  That also has the problem of being exactly what is happening. 

    Really?    I did a 30 second Google search and found the following. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-hotel-prices-drop-organization-717189%3famp=1

     Rental rates for his properties are down everywhere and the prime hotel that is the center of the allegations, is one in Washington DC, has a 20% lower occupancy rate than the other hotels in its class. What the fuck are you even talking about. 

  10. 43 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

    Bribery is already something that trump can’t be a part of. It seems by turning the definition of emoluments into bribery, you’ve effectively made the emoluments requirement disappear. Brilliant!

    Wow.  Nice leap there.  If Trump took bribes he should go down.  If he accepted gifts from foreign govts he should go down.  If foreign govts paid over market rates for trump properties he should go down.  Nowhere did I try and turn the  definition of emoluments into bribery. Sheesh. 

  11. The emoluments issue is a tricky one.  But it is not, at all, the slam dunk many of claim.  There are plenty of legal and popular opinion arguments that trump is not violating the act.  I would think the question of whether or not paying market rate for a service is considered an emolument (it is certainly not a gift) could go to SCOTUS.

    IMO, the only way emoluments gets any traction is if it can be proved that foreign govts paid over market rates at Trump properties and then received some kind of benefit.  The public knew trump owned hotels and golf courses all over the world when he was elected.

    With that being said, I do not have a problem with an audit of the trump properties to see what was paid.  If it was over market, then trump should go down.

    I also recall the trump folks saying any profits from foreign govt revenue would be donated to charity.  I would support following up on that.

     

  12. 1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

     

    55 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    Having to repost those links is further proof sheeeit doesn’t read sheeeit.  He just posts questions. 

     

    44 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    In fairness he probably read the Russian lawyers testimony months ago so he had his talking points ready to go. The rest was just a bunch of bullshit. 

     

    33 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    You mean the Senate testimony where she claimed she didn't have a relationship with the Russian government? Until emails between her and Russian government officials came out and she had to admit she lied in her Senate testimony? 

    Sheeit must have missed that in his extensive research. 

     

    29 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    I’ve pointed that out to him several times.  He just never replies. I imagine he will wait a few pages to reply and skip over it again.  And if someone asks, he will won’t another link.  

    You guys are amazing.  You are all actually so stupid or lazy that you do not even know what you are talking about.  I am guessing that none of you actually read any of Nataliya's testimony.  I know reading is hard and understanding it is harder but you guys should give it a try.  

    Here is the relevant passage from the NYT article:

    "But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm."

    For you uninformed (which is most of you) N was the lead attorney for a company called Prezevon that was sued by the US attorney's office for money laundering.  The US attorneys office requested information on Prezevon from their counter part in Russia (its a log name but we will call it the GPO).  When the GPO was asked by the US to provide information on Prezevon, the GPO contacted N to coordinate their response as she was the lead attorney for Prezevon.  Her only contact was as her capacity as the lawyer for Prezevon and all of the dealings with the GPO were in the Prezevon case.  This is absolutely common.  If IBM is being sued in Russia and Russia asks the Federal govt to give them info on IBM the first thing the Feds will do is call the US lawyers representing IBM in the case.

    So, now you morons (who clearly have not read the testimony) say this is evidence N lied in her testimony.  Not only is it not a lie, she admitted it and talked about it in her testimony.  

    First, she admits in her opening statement that she worked for the GPO early in her career:

    "My name is Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya. I am a citizen of the Russian Federation. I am a lawyer and a managing partner at Kamerton Consulting, a law firm, and I am licensed to work as an attorney-at-law in the Russian Federation. I operate independently of any governmental bodies. In 1998, I graduated with honors from the Moscow State Legal Academy. Upon graduation, I started working at the Central Administration of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow Region where I ended up being promoted to the position of the head of the department for control over legality of the legislation adopted by the legislative bodies of the Moscow Region (the Governor, Government and the Duma). I have been practicing as a private attorney since the spring of 2001. In 2003, I established a private law firm, Kamerton Consulting. I specialize in representing clients that are parties to civil (arbitration) and criminal cases primarily associated with economic disputes or violations."

    Second, she fully admits she worked with the GPO in her formal capacity as a lawyer (Chaika is he head of the GPO):

    "22. What is your relationship with Chaika, his office, and/or his representatives?

    I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives, and institutions, other than those related to my professional functions of a lawyer. As a lawyer of Denis Katsyv, since 2013 I have sent several appeals to the Russian Federation General Prosecutor's Office requesting documents within my legal powers, and also filed applications to verify the information about Mr. Browder’s activities in Russia that resulted in the wrongful seizure of my client's assets in the USA and Switzerland, received answers, analyzed them and addressed them anew, should I be refused answers or provision of documents – I appealed to the court. I was also invited several times to explain the contents of my applications for documents that I collected in the framework of my legal procedure. Similar work was done by me as a lawyer in the Investigative Department of the RF Ministry of Internal Affairs. Several times I was formally received by the Prosecutor General of Russia. I have interacted with the RF Prosecutor General several times in the capacity of a lawyer. For example, this summer, I was granted an audience with the RF Prosecutor General, Yu. Ya. Chaika, to deliver an official statement in connection with my defending an American citizen and a member of the US Jewish community who had been arrested in Moscow in the spring of this year for importing forbidden items. The young man was facing up to four years in prison. I accepted him as a client on his family’s request when I was still in New York. And despite the fact that the US Embassy refused to participate in the fate of the American citizen (I spoke with the US Consul in Moscow several times asking the embassy to submit a petition to the RF Prosecutor General’s Office which the embassy never bothered to do), thanks to the well-coordinated cooperation with US lawyers and experts, members of the Moscow and CHARLES E. GRASSLEY November 20, 2017 Page 23 of 52 US Jewish communities, once Mr. Chaika had heard out the arguments of the defense and instructed that they be verified, the case was closed; my client was ordered to pay a small court penalty and allowed to return home to his family. I have no right to identify the client but the case is well known to the US Embassy in Moscow."

    So gee maybe once again you sheep were fooled by the media and NYT.  N never lied at all in her testimony and she actually admitted under oath the exact thing that you dorks said she lied about.

    I have no idea how you will spin this one, but it would be nice if just once one of you had the balls to admit that you were either wrong or at least admit that you were relying on a news story that was wrong.

    • Fuck You 1
  13. 13 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    She works with Rinat Akhmetshin. Feel free to read up on his past. And the KGB didn't dissolve, they just changed their name to the Federal Security Service. 

    So no link on her lying.  Solid proof there.  I think you mean the GRU or FSB and I am still curious how they use lobbyists.   

  14. 8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Your wrong. She has already been caught lying about a meeting with Simpson from Fusion GPS. She also is a lobbyist for the KGB. Sadly Trump kool-aid chuggers like yourself have more confidence in the integrity of the KGB these days than they do of the FBI and CIA. The Trump Republicans are a sad, sad group of people and will ultimately go down in the history books as traitors. 

    how about a link?  especially that she is a lobbyist for the KGB.  it will be a neat trick since the kgb dissolved in 1991.  and i did not know that intelligence agencies had lobbyists.   

  15. 9 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    The one exception to that I can speculate about (but don't have telecom expertise to say) would be if the White House switching system is big enough and sophisticated enough (and I've heard it's really something else) to have all that capability you'd expect of the telephone company.  So the White House system, not the telephone company would have all the detail, and  the phone company or outside NSA type couldn't "break into" it.  In that case Mueller would have to get the number from whoever controlled the White House system.  And that might be a problem.

    Just speculating without the facts.

    Arent you talking about calls before and after the meeting in trump tower with the russians?  Trump was not potus then.  The wh switchboard is irrelevent.  I would imagine that mueller has the ability to get the phone numbers if he wants them.

  16. 2 hours ago, Pods said:

     

    How about we all sit right here and do nothing, because none of our opinions matter in this case and you are a troll that will remain 'unconvinced' no matter how much evidence slaps you upside the face. You are an obvious troll too, so who even knows, or particularly cares, what you actually believe. 

    I've already engaged you far too much today. I only do so periodically to expose you as the troll you are for potential lurkers or new members.

    We're well past that point today and I apologize to the veteran posters, who already know what a piece of sheeit he is, for any part I had in prolonging it. 

    Perfect.  Lets sit here and do nothing.  Does that include you guys posting every single story that is out there by any lunatic that writes one about this?  

    You have no idea what evidence is.  Your entire theory of everything is based 100% on what you read in the media.  You have a chance to actually read something that is evidence and you refuse.  But I am the troll.  Here is a hint, when mueller puts out his report he is not going to include a single reference to anyone in the media and their opinion on the matter.  But he will absolutely include include sworn testimony of the actual people being accused.

    Think about what you typed above.  You engage me to expose me to new members and lurkers.  That is so fucking pathetic and sad I can not believe you even typed it.  I am sure all of the people that come here appreciate the fact that you think they are idiots that need you to tell them what is correct and incorrect.  

    How about that Natailya lie you posted?  You going to prove it?

    • Fuck You 1
  17. 23 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    What if they (stay with me on this...) lied?

     

    Then someone would have to prove the lie correct?  There would need to be documents or recordings or something right?  Surely the fate of the POTUS does not hinge on what idiots like Pods THINK happened.  have one of the attorneys on here read the relevant parts of the transcripts and ask them if they believe them to be credible based on their experience.  

    You have multiple people, several of which had never even met each other before going to an open meeting in Trump tower and we are to believe that in that meeting, there was an exchange that would constitute treason?  That seems logical to people?  Everyone involved said the meeting took  20-30 minutes.  You believe that a massively complicated scheme to alter an election that would put every single one of them in jail if it were true would be hatched out in 20-30 minutes?  That they would just bring along a freelance interpreter so he could be implicated in the scheme?  That the plot to hatch the biggest potential conspiracy in US history was done in an open meeting room in Trump tower.  With Kushner coming in late and leaving early and 100s of trump employees milling around.  

    And if at the meeting there actually had been incriminating evidence about Hillary passed on for lifting sanctions, where exactly is the incriminating info on Hillary?  Why would they then approach Carter Page and then Erik Prince and Flynn and Papas and Manafort before them?  Why would there not be a single further call or email or text or meeting or anything between the trump folks and Nataliya or Ike or Rinat?  Why would Kushner be furious about the meeting (unless we agree with retard pods that Kushner planted that story on purpose to throw everyone off)?  It is nonsensical.  

    • Fuck You 1
  18. 20 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Your basing your impression of the meeting based on the testimony of those in the meeting, which is fair. But 1) they've all proven to be liars who constantly change their stories as more news is shed and 2) If they sat their and talked about smoking gun type of shit, do you think they would just admit to that? 

    I am not aware that Nataliya, Ike or the interpreter have ever been proven to be liars but I could be wrong.  I don't think Goldstone was a proven liar unless you count the fact that he embellished the reason for the meeting to Jr in order to actually get a meeting.  A meeting that his one and only client at the time asked for him to set up personally, so he needed to come through.

    Of course I do not think they would sit down and admit to illegal activity.  My guess would be they would simply refuse to testify.  I do not think the US senate can compel foreigners to testify in hearings.   Maybe they can.  I dont know.

    But, again, it doesnt matter what anyone thinks it only matters what someone can prove.  Trying to get people to stick to a lie is really hard if everyone is in cahoots in the deal.  But certainly Ike and Goldstone and the interpreter had nothing to do with any of this.  many of them met each other for the first time that day.  I do not believe that someone would be able to get all of them to blatantly lie under oath and I do not think they could keep their story straight if they tried to lie.  

  19. 12 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Totally true. Most of these leaks have been from pro-Trump sources and the journalists haven't done their job validating and burning unreliable sources. Him getting mad that they didn't deliver can easily be a cover story planted by Jared. 

    Lulz.  Even for you that is a good one.

  20. 15 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Shocker that you are trying to change the message and change what people actually said. 

    The meeting was specifically about lifting sanctions in exchange for sanctions help. Veselnitskya said she would be delivering it. She didn't. Trump had already said publicly that he would be releasing the info in a few days. Kushner was pissed she didn't deliver.

    Like I said, you can not keep track of your own story and the lies needed to make it true.  At least now you seem to be admitting that there was no dirt delivered.

    Show us one link of any kind where nataliya " said she would be delivering it".  That is a total fabrication and you know it.  She never said anything even remotely about that.  She had zero communication with Jr or Kushner or Manafort prior to the actual meeting.  

  21. 28 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    A meeting about the lifting of economic sanctions on rich and powerful Russians with the promise of "dirt on Hilary Clinton" has nothing to do with a conspiracy. That is the definition of a quid pro quo. 

     

    25 minutes ago, Pods said:

    It was literally a meeting to discuss Russia giving them politically damaging information (opportunity research, an in-kind campaign contribution from Russia) in exchange for dropping sanctions on Russia.

    It makes you wonder how deep it must get when that is the best case cover story they could come up with. 

    I know that is what you guys want it to be about.  You really really want it to be.  None of you obviously read any of the testimonies.  The following is a list of questions that was asked of all of the meeting participants under oath and penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination (except Nataliya).  Jr, Nataliya, Ike, Rinat, Goldstone and the interpreter.  All of them asked the same list of questions and this is from the interpreter:

    16 BY MS . BRENNAN : 1 7 Q. Turning now t o the mee ti ng itself on June 1 8 9 , 201 6 , did anyone s t a t e that t he Russian 1 9 Government support e d Do nald Trump ' s Pr e side ntial 20 campa ign?

    21 A. No .

    2 2 Q. Did anyone state that the Russian 23 Government opposed Hillary Clinton 's c ampaign?

    24 2 5 A No.

    Q. Did anyo n e at the me eti ng o ff e r t o 1 releas e hacke d emails to aid the Trump campaign?

    2 A No .

    3 Q. Did a nyo ne o ffer to manufacture or 4 distribute fake news to aid the Trump campaign?

    5 A No .

    6 Q. Did anyone offer to hack State voter 7 reg istratio n systems t o obtain v o t e r data to aid 8 the Trump campa ign?

    A No .

    44 9 1 0 Q. Was there any discussio n of anything that 11 might rea sonably be considered collusion between 12 the Trump campaign and the Russian Government?

    13 A. No .

     

    Every participant said the exact same thing in regards to this.  These are publicly available.  Just read them.  It is not surprising that the media hasnt produced these quotes but they release the fact that one person said Kushner left the meeting early and another said he didnt.  Solid reporting on the pertinent facts there.

    How about any of you read the transcripts and tell me how Mueller is going to prove anything related to conspiracy as a result of this meeting.  

  22. 46 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Yesterday was insane. There's a ton of stuff that broke in the news and was buried and I didn't even see posted on here. Here's a good one. 

    Here's another. 

     

    Another beauty.  Makes perfect sense in some worlds.  

    Pods- The trump tower meeting was specifically about lifting sanctions in exchange for election help.

    Pods- Kushner furious that meeting was not about lifting sanctions in exchange for election help.

     

  23. 3 minutes ago, Pods said:

    This is why you don't feed the troll. There's actual news going on. 

    The FBI already knew Cohen was talking about building a Trump Tower with individuals that had interfered in the election BEFORE Mueller was appointed. 

    This is actually perfect for this board and all things Trump.  We have actual verified testimony regarding this whole fiasco and that testimony is dismissed and seemingly not worth anyone's time, BUT a new blog post from some unknown person that talks about information from unnamed, anonymous fbi agents (who we have been told for a year do not leak ever) is considered news.  I am not at all surprised.

  24. 2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Then why did they lie about it?

    Well point out a specific lie and I will be happy to address it. 

    My guess is that the meeting was such a nothing that it was largely forgotten about until more details came out.  Then it just looked embarrassing.  When I google about the lies, the main thing I find is that people say Jr was lying when he said the meeting was about adoptions.  Well, based on the testimony now available of everyone at the actual meeting, it was about adoptions.  That is clearly not what Jr thought it was going to be about.  It certainly had exactly zero to do with any kind of conspiracy between the russian govt and trump et al to help in the election.

×
×
  • Create New...