Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. To keep the BJ thought going you are doubling down on stupid. Hitting on a 16 when the dealer shows a 6 is a dumb play and people doing that will likely lose money in the long term. A person doing that next to you does not change your odds. The odds getting better the farther away from the first seat is only true if you are counting. If not, no change.
  2. sheeeit

    Iran

    It depends on what happens. The US puts sanctions back on Iran. We have little to no trade with Iran so it does not mean much by itself. But maybe other countries will have to decide if they want to stay in the good graces of the US or Iran? It is a complex thing. I am not saying it is a good strategy or the right strategy, but the US has tremendous power to influence others. Plus, Israel is still the wild card. IMO (and it is only an opinion) I think the leaders of Iran are scared to death of Israel. They will never, ever admit that, but I believe that it is true. I also believe that the leaders of the rest of the world do not want Israel bombing Iran facilities. The deal that was done put Israel in a tough spot as they could not really do anything to Iran after the deal was put in place. By the US dropping out, Israel becomes a wild card once again. It is possible that those 2 things will force the rest of the world to renegotiate a deal with Iran that has actual teeth. Again, just an opinion.
  3. The Prince stuff is great. As I have said, I do not think Prince will get accused of doing anything by Mueller. But the fun side is that the supposed reason for the meeting with russians was to set up a back channel. Which is interesting for a lot of reasons. I thought it was Kushner that had the back channel communications? And before that Flynn? And before that Manafort? And before that Carter Page? Or was it the meeting with Nataliya? What about the russian mob? What about whoever trump colluded with in the election? I mean, surely there is a back channel communication established already? But maybe not. Maybe it made sense to the russians to try and get a back channel through a guy that is not even in the admin. And a billionaire that they could surely blackmail for......? And, since the whole point of setting up back channels is to avoid detection, they thought it would be wise to get as many people involved in the process as possible.
  4. sheeeit

    Iran

    I have also like reading about this line of thinking. Yesterday we had inspectors on the ground that Iran obviously knew about so people asked about the sites that were not eligible to be inspected and the retort was we will know from our IC. Today, we, apparently, have no inspectors on the ground, but, even more amazing, our IC can longer do anything apparently. Yesterday our IC was so good that it did not matter that we did not have access to certain sites. Today, our IC is so bad that they we have no way of knowing anything at all.
  5. sheeeit

    Iran

    The irony of this post is spectacular. Calling someone out for not understanding something and then posting something that you clearly have no understanding of. How do you think low-enriched uranium becomes highly enriched genius?
  6. It depends totally on the language of the contract. Companies enter into bad contracts all of the time. The contract could have been written that Cohen would meet a certain number of times throughout the year and offer his opinion on stuff. If Novartis decided after the first meeting that Cohen's opinion was stupid, they still had to honor the contract as long as Cohen kept agreeing to show up as agreed. Sounds like Cohen just did a sales job on Novartis. I am curious though as to what you guys think Novartis was paying for? Or what they got? Direct access to Trump? Inside info?
  7. So what is illegal? Are you claiming that ATT buying Cohen's assistance is illegal? Is working as a middleman illegal? You seem to be implying that Cohen was illegally getting foreign money or dirty money into the RNC. Super. I hope they catch him on that and put him in jail.
  8. I am not sure he has to legally. If he met with them, had calls with them, set up meetings for them then he can claim he did his job. Or, ATT can sue him and ask for their money back. Of course it could be something else. I have a hard time believing that ATT willingly gave money to Cohen to set up a slush fund to fix things for Trump. I have already said I think Cohen is shady and there very well may be some incriminating stuff in his files. We shall see.
  9. Look I think Cohen is shady as fuck. I hope he gets nailed if he actually committed a crime. From what has been reported, I have not seen a crime yet. Shady dealings for sure. But if Cohen pimped himself as a consultant with insights into Trump and people paid him for it, then I do not think he did anything illegal. It is pretty hilarious that people think ATT could "buy" net neutrality for a few hundred grand. Trump was vocally against it from the campaign trail. Also, this is a great site https://www.publicintegrity.org/. Go there and search for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump etc. You will find reams of stories about bundlers and corps and friends of every one of them that got plum govt jobs, multi million dollar contracts, loans etc. This is nothing new. It is shady and bad, but not new. I have stated many, many times that it is impossible to get money out of politics. Impossible. The way to fix the problem is having strictly termed people that never run for reelection.
  10. sheeeit

    Iran

    First, this is the problem with any POTUS entering into such a dramatic deal without congressional approval. Because if we let one guy do it, then we do not have a choice if the next guy wants to undo it. The original deal was terrible. IMO, it was the epitome of political grandstanding which actually made the situation worse. The Iranians said they only coveted nuclear capabilities for energy, yet, the recent report by Israel makes it abundantly clear that they want nuclear military capabilities. The 2 biggest problems with the original deal are 1) the timelines and, 2) the access. Obama has openly admitted that this deal gives Iran the capability to have advanced enough centrifuges that they could enrich uranium to military grade in a number of days. Certainly in a shorter time than any inspections could stop it. Why would we agree to a deal that lets the Iranians have the advanced centrifuges? They are completely unnecessary for energy production. It was an absolute horrible part of the deal and the one that, essentially, makes the deal worthless from a practical standpoint. A whopping 10 or so years Iran has to wait to get everything they wanted and we released 100s of billions to them. Literally, the deal from Iran's prospective was- we get 100s of billions in cash, we get trade sanctions lifted, we get advanced centrifuges, we get limited inspection and, if we wait a whole 10 years, we get the ability to enrich military grade uranium in a matter of days. That is the deal of century for Iran. Again, purely political grandstanding. The access is equally as bad. Iran was in bad, bad shape financially and politically. Bad shape. They HAD to make a deal. Yet, we did not demand unfettered access to their potential sites. It is baffling why we would do that. It is like Aggy facing the death penalty for football recruiting violations and Texas agreeing to let them off the hook if we get to inspect their recruiting of punters only. I am hopeful that the advanced centrifuges and access issues can be renegotiated in a new deal. We shall see.
  11. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/missouri-lawmakers-special-session-greitens-impeachment/index.html Perhaps there is hope. Republicans impeaching a republican. Baby steps. Hopefully you can drink some good bourbon this weekend and step back from the ledge for a few days.
  12. Every once in a while Hugo's true nature peeks out. It is funny that Politico (which is rated as liberal) is now a propaganda arm for Trump. This was just an opinion piece (one I do not personally agree with very much). There is probably a 50-1 ratio of opinion pieces that are against Trump. When you guys use words like tyranny, you are just making total fools of yourselves.
  13. That is not technically correct. First, the campaign had to know about the contribution and "accept" it. Or, they have to make the case that Cohen was an active agent of the campaign. Both will be very hard to prove, IMO. But it is not a slam dunk. They can also try and make a case that by Trump reimbursing Cohen that that act constituted the acceptance of the payment for the benefit of the campaign. The whole episode is shady but proving it to be illegal will be difficult. And, even if they prove it somehow, the only real penalty is to retroactively declare it and account for it and, possibly, return it.
  14. So your theory is that back during the final weeks of the campaign that Cohen paid stormy $130K and then the trump org billed the trump campaign an equivalent amount of money ($130K). And then Trump funneled the money back to Cohen in $35K monthly installments after the fact? I suppose that is possible with this crew but I doubt it.
  15. Your first paragraph is my whole point. I believe that there are records showing $35K monthly retainer payments to Cohen from trump that started sometime after the election. IMO, that is why Guillani talked about it. Their position is going to be that Cohen made the initial payment to Stormy without Trump's knowledge and without the campaign's knowledge. Trump and Cohen will try and say it was just a retainer for legal work and not connected to the Stormy payout. I think that is bs but I do not think that even if they now admit that it was essentially reimbursement for the payout that it was illegal. That was Guilliani's point.
  16. Your capacity to post the same thing over and over and over is impressive. My take on the payments is that Cohen paid stormy off. I would guess that Trump knew but I think it will be impossible to prove that he knew or it will be a semantics game- Trump to Cohen "just deal with it" but I dont need to know the details. In that scenario, Trump can truthfully state that he did not know that a payment was made. My guess is that Guiliiani saw that there were retainer fees to Cohen from Trump and made the assumption that Mueller/Press/Public would interpret those retainer fees as reimbursement for Stormy so he decided to just go public with it because there wasn't anything illegal about it (assuming the payments were, in fact, from cohen personally and not the campaign). Obviously, if Cohen used campaign funds or was reimbursed from the campaign then there is trouble with FEC violations. Pretty sure the violations would be civil but who knows. The problem with the line of thinking that Cohen used campaign funds to pay Stormy or that the campaign paid Cohen back is that we already have the story out there about the retainer fees from Trump. If the campaign paid for the hush money or immediately reimbursed Cohen as some are suggesting, then why are there retainer fees to Cohen now? My guess is that Cohen made the payments from his own pocket. My guess is that when cohen initially said he was not reimbursed for the payment by trump or the campaign he could technically be correct. Trump can say he put him on retainer for legal advice. Of course it sounds sketchy and very well may be but I do not think it is illegal.
  17. Lets at least be honest here, the only reason NBC retracted the statement was because they got caught. Comey has now twice (once in his congressional testimony and once in his interviews recently) said that at least 2 articles that supposedly used fbi peeps as sources were completely false. No retractions on those. When they report a fact (like this about wiretapping) they get continually burned. When they just report so and so said this, then there are no retractions because there isn't anyone to refute them. For instance, they write something like the potus talked about firing mueller. So who gets to fact check that? That is their common bs tactic these days. And how about this from the upstanding lawyer Avenatti. How is this going to be walked back or retracted? " Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for adult film actress Stormy Daniels, said on MSNBC Thursday he had knowledge that law enforcement intercepted text messages from President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen before the FBI raid of Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. The attorney, who filed a defamation lawsuit on behalf of Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, against Trump this week, was reacting to a new NBC News report that federal investigators had obtained a wiretap of Cohen’s phone lines. According to NBC, law enforcement intercepted at least one phone call between Cohen and the White House. The report said it was unclear how long the wiretap had been in place. “I don't think we're going to find out that this was confined just to email or voice wiretaps. My understanding is that they were also wiretapping text message communications for the weeks leading up to the FBI raids,” Avenatti said. Pressed on how he garnered the information, Avenatti responded: “I’m not speculating, that’s a fact." Avenatti said he believed intercepted communications gave investigators reason to believe that evidence could be destroyed if they didn’t move in and raid Cohen's properties. "I also think that it will ultimately be disclosed that during these wiretaps the FBI learned of means by which Michael Cohen and others were going to potentially destroy or spoliate evidence or documentation," Avenatti said. "That's what served as the predicate or the basis for them to be able to go in and get the warrant to search the home, the office and the hotel room of Michael Cohen." Anyone think that MSNBC is going to correct the Avenatti rant? Think Avenatti will just admit he made it all up? That perhaps when he said "I'm not speculating, that's a fact." that he was, in fact, speculating and talking right out of his ass. How is that Genie getting back in the bottle. I also love the Pods and Hugo narrative that this is Trumps people feeding bad info to the willing media to try and diffuse the actual news. That trumps people have been using the media and manipulating them. I mean even you guys would admit that reporters would only let a source burn them once right? yet you are suggesting this has been going on for a year. The smart ethical journalists just keep using these trump sources that keep burning them. And, now that trumps peeps are in tight with the media and acting as informants, they decided to blow their cover on a story about Cohen's phones being tapped which can, and was, easily proved wrong. The trump peeps worked really hard to get in a position to influence the media narrative and then blew it all away on a nothing story about cohen. Seems logical. The media has been using anonymous sources to drive ratings for a year and a half and you guys love it.
  18. I used to think this was a bit, but there are actually people that truly believe that if Trump loses the election in 2020 that he won't leave office? That is past crazy to just plain retarded. As to the dinner, the WHC had to know what they were getting when they hired her. It didnt seem to me to be that brutal but it was just completely unfunny. I am sure it resonated with about 10% of the market but the other 90% just thought it was dumb.
  19. Why so scared? You are convinced you know what is going on. I offered a simple wager. Dont be a pussy. Lets wager.
  20. Our democracy as we know it is at stake! Burn her! She is a witch and a colluder!
  21. Do you even have a clue how pathetic you come across when you post. You have never caught me in any lie. You accuse me of lying but never actually prove anything. But I am happy to publicly wager on my position. lets make a bet. If Mueller finds that Nataliya was a russian agent and was part of the russian conspiracy with the trump crew I will change my name on here to Pods is a Genius. If not, you change yours to Sheeeit is a Genius.
  22. Lulz. tweetle dumb and tweetle dumber.
  23. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-kushner-don-jr-admits-to-being-an-informant-1221063235886 Nice job crazies. Through subtitles we are to believe she admitted to being a russian agent. She didnt. We have no idea what word she =said or how it translates in english. She gets after Engel in the end for accusing her of being dishonest. She is adamant that she never lied about anything to the HIC. They cut off her statement at the end. If the emails are real, all they really prove is that she worked on a case that had some govt involvement. She already admitted working in connection with the russian govt in her capacity as legal counsel for Prevezon. I predict this will go where every other crazy theory goes....nowhere. A 2 minute or so edited interview is the one that brings everyone down? Any of you wonder why no one with a brain is following up on this?
  24. I have no care at all for Avenatti or his lies. I thought it was kind of funny to watch people figure out a way that trump paid for an abortion and a multimillionaire took the fall for it and the lawyer that represented the playboy model that had the abortion went along with the scam because...? It was completely preposterous. As for policy, I never really give much attention to anything that politicians say about it. The only thing that matters is their actual actions. Is your issue that the ACA is horrible but that it is even more horrible that trump could not fix it in his first year? At least they tried. Every potus from bush, clinton, bush, obama has promised to fix any number of things. Very few ever got fixed. I think the aca is terrible. I was hopeful it could get changed. So far it has not. Had trump lied about healthcare and then changed the law based on those lies and it made the situation worse, then of course I would be pissed. I am pissed that it did not get changed but I am still more pissed at the group that put it in place than the group that tried to change it.
×
×
  • Create New...