Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations

sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by sheeeit
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suppose I would consider a bribe to be an emolument. Why? If it is ever proved that trump took a bribe he will go down.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Lulz. Even for you that is a good one.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
From Trump Jr perspective, the purpose was to potentially get dirt on Hillary. From the other participants, the purpose was to try and lobby the Trump team to help with the Magnitsky Act and russia's retaliatory move of banning adoptions by US folks.
-
Ok. Thats pretty funny.
-
It is kind of funny. We have been getting anonymous leaked stories for a year and a half. We have people that have posted on Russia/conspiracy four and five times every single day for over year. Literally thousands of posts by hundreds of different people. We finally, for the first time as it relates to Trump/Russia get actual sourced testimony and facts and no one wants to talk about it. I wonder why that is?
-
Tuco (and the others)- Pretty much everything you said above is accurate. And, it is the reason that there needed to be an investigation. The initial email from Goldstone sounded quite suspicious. But you keep ignoring the most obvious point, they have been doing investigations and they (the SIC- which I have been reading lately on here is both bi-partisan and professional) interviewed, under oath and penalty of perjury, all of the participants in the meeting. They answered all of the questions independent of each other and they all gave the same basic story. The exact same story that they have given publicly. Now I know the absolute crazies believe that they are all in cahoots and lying, but that is silly. They have emails and texts and all other correspondence form these actors from before and after the meeting. Read their testimony. There is a reason that none of the usual crazies (Hugo, triple etc.) are commenting on this. It is because this was not an anonymous leaker in a news article. It was not the wild speculation of a blogger/twitterer. It is the actual transcript of the testimonies of the parties involved. These are the actual facts and the actual evidence we have. This is, for almost the first time, actual factual evidence. And if any of you are being even remotely honest, you will agree that the likelihood that mueller can make any kind of collusion/conspiracy case out of this particular meeting is virtually nil. You still have lots of other angles to speculate on to get trump. But this meeting was one of the biggest arrows in everyone's quiver. And it is DOA for practical purposes. This does not mean Trump is completely exonerated at all. There is still lots of stuff to investigate. But this single particular line, is dead. As for your particular interest in the lawyer and Ike and Preet, there certainly does not seem to be anything weird in it to me. The lawyers were heavily involved in the Prezevon case that Preet was heading. Obviously a change in the lead prosecutor in the middle to end of the case would be a big deal. Typically, all of the US attorneys get summarily fired by the incoming Potus's. Clinton, Bush, Obama etc. Occasionally there is one or two left over. It was unusual that Trump wanted to initially keep Preet and then unusual when he left. It is not the least bit unusual for some of the parties involved (including the lawyers and business executives) to speculate on what the implications for the case would be. It would be weird if they did not speculate on it. Settling cases days before trial is hardly unusual. Preet himself congratulated his replacement for the settlement. You posted a statement by the lawyers for Prezevon who liked the settlement. Here is what the US had to say said about the settlement: ""Under the terms of this settlement, the defendants have agreed to pay not just what we alleged flowed to them from the Russian treasury fraud, but three times that amount, and roughly 10 times the money we alleged could be traced directly into US accounts and real estate," acting Manhattan US Attorney Joon H. Kim said." " A letter filed on December 12 and signed by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd said that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York had no contact with President Donald Trump, his administration’s personnel, his relatives, or his campaign officials regarding the case, known informally as Prevezon. "The decision to settle was made by career… prosecutors based on the merits and on a conclusion that the proposed settlement represented a highly favorable resolution of the case for the United States," said the letter, which was stamped November 9.
-
I agree that any POTUS probably should not be able to be indicted while in office. Mueller should complete his investigation and give the results to congress and let them decide if the POTUS should be removed from office. After trump is out of office, he should be subject to the same standards as anyone else.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!