Today in Trump

[Kirkland Laing]

Read a couple quick pieces at work where Trump was talking NK and previous Presidents. He used 'previous regimes' rather than U.S administrations. Just struck me odd as hell and cannot recall hearing that before save for when we're talking foreign regimes and dictators.

To be fair he isn't the most accurate with words even when he isn't lying. He has a kind of limited vocabulary, he always seems to me to be struggling for the right word to use but he can't and then falls back on a tried and tested one. He'll have been hearing the word "regime" a lot in the buildup to Singapore and it probably just popped into his head.

[Kirkland Laing]

The stuff you wrote about Rosenstein is not common knowledge. You got that form somewhere and you're not going to say where, are you? If it's common knowledge then it must be all over the internet but I bet you don't provide one link to it.

The stuff leaked from the report, which isn't released by Rosenstein, it's released by the FBI IG, all describes Comey damaging Hillary's election chances. It's going to be funny watching Trump get outraged at how Comey helped him win. And it doesn't help the deep state were trying to get Trump to lose argument, does it?

If Lynch is found to have had conversations with the subject of an FBI investigation about that investigation then would you say this is a bad thing? That the AG and the subject should face some sort of criminal penalty? If Bill Clinton did try to influence Lynch over the investigation should he face some sort of criminal charges for doing so?

Ya still don't know how Google works do you?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...coming/557894/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1HH066

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ent-talk-rises






Oh Kirkland, Kirkland Kirkland.....it really will be a rude awakening for you


In the coming months we will find out an awful lot about Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting.

Here's what you said originally:

IG report comes out Thursday, Rod Rosenstein will be gotten rid of because the IG report will be HEAVILY redacted. There will be an Executive Order to declassify some of that material.

Can you point to where exactly any of that is in any of the articles you posted. It's common knowledge now, you must be able to find it somewhere.

[El Kabong]

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood on Thursday filed a sweeping lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation and its board of directors — the president and his three eldest children — for engaging in “a pattern of persistent illegal conduct.”
The lawsuit claims Trump’s foundation “illegally provided extensive support” to his 2016 campaign. It also alleges that the foundation engaged in “willful self-dealing” to serve Trump’s personal and business interests.
Underwood asked a state judge to dissolve the foundation entirely. She also asked that its remaining $1 million in assets be distributed to other charities, that Trump pay at least $2.8 million in restitution, and that Trump be barred from leading any other New York nonprofit for at least 10 years.
The charity’s directors, President Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump were sued in their individual capacity, putting them personally on the hook for the repayment of funds.
Trump’s children were on a board that “existed in name only” and did not meet after 1999, according to the lawsuit, leaving their father without any oversight, and allowing him effectively to do with the foundation what he wished.
“The Trump Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality,” Underwood said in a statement on the results of her office’s 20-month investigation.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...llegal-conduct

LOL if The Trump Foundation is "little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump" then what does that make the Clinton Foundation?

[Kirkland Laing]

[QUOTE=El Kabong;1478912]

In the coming months we will find out an awful lot about Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting.

If we find out that Clinton tried to improperly influence a criminal investigation by the FBI should he face some kind of criminal charges for doing so?

What do you believe we'll find out? How will we find it out?

[Kirkland Laing]

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood on Thursday filed a sweeping lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation and its board of directors — the president and his three eldest children — for engaging in “a pattern of persistent illegal conduct.”
The lawsuit claims Trump’s foundation “illegally provided extensive support” to his 2016 campaign. It also alleges that the foundation engaged in “willful self-dealing” to serve Trump’s personal and business interests.
Underwood asked a state judge to dissolve the foundation entirely. She also asked that its remaining $1 million in assets be distributed to other charities, that Trump pay at least $2.8 million in restitution, and that Trump be barred from leading any other New York nonprofit for at least 10 years.
The charity’s directors, President Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump were sued in their individual capacity, putting them personally on the hook for the repayment of funds.
Trump’s children were on a board that “existed in name only” and did not meet after 1999, according to the lawsuit, leaving their father without any oversight, and allowing him effectively to do with the foundation what he wished.
“The Trump Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality,” Underwood said in a statement on the results of her office’s 20-month investigation.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...llegal-conduct

LOL if The Trump Foundation is "little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump" then what does that make the Clinton Foundation?

The charities watchdog rate it on a par with the Red Cross as far as financial probity goes. They haven't faced any criminal charges, have they?

[El Kabong]

If we find out that Clinton tried to improperly influence a criminal investigation by the FBI should he face some kind of criminal charges for doing so?

What do you believe we'll find out? How will we find it out?

Well a better question to ask is if Obama or Hillary were also involved in that meeting, I mean computers and phones, say a Skype call or something might be interesting.


Yes, eventually they'll face charges. It's going to take a while to actually get the evidence public because the MSM is 110% in the bag for Obama/Hillary/Bill/Democrats/Establishment Republicans.

The charities watchdog rate it on a par with the Red Cross as far as financial probity goes. They haven't faced any criminal charges, have they?

Not YET






Kirkland, what if I told you that Rod Rosenstein approved or signed off on FISA-warrant applications to continue spying on Trump and those around him?








Things are going to get very weird coming up and it is going to be extremely amusing watching it all play out

[El Kabong]

In the IG report and somebody forgot to tell Congress.....Rod Rosenstein, you've been a baaaaaad boy


August 8 2016 Strzok-Page texts

Page: [Trump’s] not ever going to become President, right? Right?!

Strzok: No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.


Who is "We"?

[Kirkland Laing]

The stuff you wrote about Rosenstein is not common knowledge. You got that form somewhere and you're not going to say where, are you? If it's common knowledge then it must be all over the internet but I bet you don't provide one link to it.

The stuff leaked from the report, which isn't released by Rosenstein, it's released by the FBI IG, all describes Comey damaging Hillary's election chances. It's going to be funny watching Trump get outraged at how Comey helped him win. And it doesn't help the deep state were trying to get Trump to lose argument, does it?

If Lynch is found to have had conversations with the subject of an FBI investigation about that investigation then would you say this is a bad thing? That the AG and the subject should face some sort of criminal penalty? If Bill Clinton did try to influence Lynch over the investigation should he face some sort of criminal charges for doing so?

Ya still don't know how Google works do you?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...coming/557894/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1HH066

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ent-talk-rises






Oh Kirkland, Kirkland Kirkland.....it really will be a rude awakening for you


In the coming months we will find out an awful lot about Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting.

Here's what you said originally:

IG report comes out Thursday, Rod Rosenstein will be gotten rid of because the IG report will be HEAVILY redacted. There will be an Executive Order to declassify some of that material.

Can you point to where exactly any of that is in any of the articles you posted. It's common knowledge now, you must be able to find it somewhere.

Still no reply to this. Where did you get this nonsense from?

[Kirkland Laing]

If we find out that Clinton tried to improperly influence a criminal investigation by the FBI should he face some kind of criminal charges for doing so?

What do you believe we'll find out? How will we find it out?

Well a better question to ask is if Obama or Hillary were also involved in that meeting, I mean computers and phones, say a Skype call or something might be interesting.


Yes, eventually they'll face charges. It's going to take a while to actually get the evidence public because the MSM is 110% in the bag for Obama/Hillary/Bill/Democrats/Establishment Republicans.

The charities watchdog rate it on a par with the Red Cross as far as financial probity goes. They haven't faced any criminal charges, have they?

Not YET






Kirkland, what if I told you that Rod Rosenstein approved or signed off on FISA-warrant applications to continue spying on Trump and those around him?








Things are going to get very weird coming up and it is going to be extremely amusing watching it all play out

Who is going to face charges? How can the media prevent the DOJ acting on evidence they have?



Secondly, Rosenstein didn't sign any FISA warrants to spy on Trump. He signed the application for a FISA warrant to monitor Carter Page, somebody who had previously worked for the Trump campaign but had left the campaign months previously to when the warrant was applied for. The warrant was issues, meaning a FISA judge was given evidence that warranted issuing the FISA warrant. The FISA warrant was also renewed twice subsequently at six month intervals, which means that there had to be evidence collected via the warrant in the previous six months that warranted the warrant being renewed. No evidence collected in the six month preiod, no warrant renewal.

Rosenstein's part in applying for the warrant was completely legitimate. The warrant then allowed the FBI to collect evidence on Page that justified the warrant being renewed twice.

Do you have any information that says Rosenstein was involved in applying for warrants to actually monitor Trump or anybody else close to Trump? Where did you get it from?

[Kirkland Laing]

In the IG report and somebody forgot to tell Congress.....Rod Rosenstein, you've been a baaaaaad boy


August 8 2016 Strzok-Page texts

Page: [Trump’s] not ever going to become President, right? Right?!

Strzok: No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.


Who is "We"?

The last time we had some out of context quotes provided they turned out to be innocuous. Further texts released showed both these people hated Hillary too and the only candidate they wanted to win was Kasich (?), a Republican.

As far as political bias goes:


The Justice Department's ethics watchdog reportedly found no evidence that the political leanings of two FBI officials, who exchanged text messages critical of President Trump during the 2016 presidential race, directly affected the FBI's investigations, while noting that their conduct "cast a cloud" over the bureau's actions.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not find that the conduct or potential political bias of FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page "directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,” according to the report’s conclusions, which were obtained Thursday by Bloomberg.
“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,” Horowitz's report conclusions reads, according to Bloomberg.



http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...political-bias

[El Kabong]

Still no reply to this. Where did you get this nonsense from?

Ah yes "I don't watch videos"


I said the IG report would be released Thursday, it's Thursday and it has been released and even if parts of it are heavily redacted it's still pretty damning to those involved: Comey, Stzrok, and Page. More will be coming because we've only gotten a morsel of what is out there....think Donald Trump is just going to say "OK, that's over with, thanks"....nah buddy


Rod Rosenstein will be gotten rid of, he could recuse himself or he could be impeached by Congress (both of those options are all over each of the links I left and the video), we'll see what he chooses but his duty is done, his job is over, and should we find out that he had ANYTHING to do with the FISA applications then whoa nelly it's going to be a hard time for him.

[Kirkland Laing]

Still no reply to this. Where did you get this nonsense from?

Ah yes "I don't watch videos"


I said the IG report would be released Thursday, it's Thursday and it has been released and even if parts of it are heavily redacted it's still pretty damning to those involved: Comey, Stzrok, and Page. More will be coming because we've only gotten a morsel of what is out there....think Donald Trump is just going to say "OK, that's over with, thanks"....nah buddy


Rod Rosenstein will be gotten rid of, he could recuse himself or he could be impeached by Congress (both of those options are all over each of the links I left and the video), we'll see what he chooses but his duty is done, his job is over, and should we find out that he had ANYTHING to do with the FISA applications then whoa nelly it's going to be a hard time for him.

So far you've said that a report will be heavily redacted and a man not involved in issuing the report will be fired because of him redacting it, the president will force the report to be unredacted, criminal charges will be brought against Obama, Hillary, Bill and Comey and it's only taking so long because the media are somehow suppressing the evidence. And that Rosenstein approved a bunch of FISA applications to spy on Trump and people around him. You've provided zero evidence to back any of these claims up.

As far as Rosenstein being impeached. He explained to Nunes and his gang the other day that if they impeach him that would allow him to subpoena them and all their communications to find out exactly what they've been up to over the past year or so. They'd also have to testify under oath. They dropped all talk of impeaching him and are now bleating that he threatened them. A whole bunch of DOJ and FBI officials present say that's nonsense, he just informed them of their legal situation and to preserve all of their communications, phones etc in case they impeach him and are subpoenaed.

[El Kabong]

So far you've said that a report will be heavily redacted and a man not involved in issuing the report will be fired because of him redacting it, the president will force the report to be unredacted, criminal charges will be brought against Obama, Hillary, Bill and Comey and it's only taking so long because the media are somehow suppressing the evidence. And that Rosenstein approved a bunch of FISA applications to spy on Trump and people around him. You've provided zero evidence to back any of these claims up.

As far as Rosenstein being impeached. He explained to Nunes and his gang the other day that if they impeach him that would allow him to subpoena them and all their communications to find out exactly what they've been up to over the past year or so. They'd also have to testify under oath. They dropped all talk of impeaching him and are now bleating that he threatened them. A whole bunch of DOJ and FBI officials present say that's nonsense, he just informed them of their legal situation and to preserve all of their communications, phones etc in case they impeach him and are subpoenaed.

Yes, more information will come out, I'm not able to produce that information but I know it'll come out because there is too much on the line for it not to.

Charges will come eventually, who for but Huber will be the one doing the charging.

LOL, Rod Rosenstein apparently isn't a very smart fellow, he's a deputy AG who is only around for an EXTREMELY specific reason....Sessions is going to come back to this with a vengeance. The deputy AG is under the AG who is under the DOJ which is under the Executive Branch Congress holds checks and balances over the Executive Branch.....civics bruh, civics, Rod Rosenstein ain't doing shit to ANY member of Congress.

Is DOJ Obstructing Congress in the Trump Surveillance Case?
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...veillance-case

What's this?

The only constitutionally recognized way the Justice Department can protect such documents from disclosure is if the president claims executive privilege.




Oh noes Rod Rosenstein, OH NOES

[Kirkland Laing]

So far you've said that a report will be heavily redacted and a man not involved in issuing the report will be fired because of him redacting it, the president will force the report to be unredacted, criminal charges will be brought against Obama, Hillary, Bill and Comey and it's only taking so long because the media are somehow suppressing the evidence. And that Rosenstein approved a bunch of FISA applications to spy on Trump and people around him. You've provided zero evidence to back any of these claims up.

As far as Rosenstein being impeached. He explained to Nunes and his gang the other day that if they impeach him that would allow him to subpoena them and all their communications to find out exactly what they've been up to over the past year or so. They'd also have to testify under oath. They dropped all talk of impeaching him and are now bleating that he threatened them. A whole bunch of DOJ and FBI officials present say that's nonsense, he just informed them of their legal situation and to preserve all of their communications, phones etc in case they impeach him and are subpoenaed.

Yes, more information will come out, I'm not able to produce that information but I know it'll come out because there is too much on the line for it not to.

Charges will come eventually, who for but Huber will be the one doing the charging.

LOL, Rod Rosenstein apparently isn't a very smart fellow, he's a deputy AG who is only around for an EXTREMELY specific reason....Sessions is going to come back to this with a vengeance. The deputy AG is under the AG who is under the DOJ which is under the Executive Branch Congress holds checks and balances over the Executive Branch.....civics bruh, civics, Rod Rosenstein ain't doing shit to ANY member of Congress.

Is DOJ Obstructing Congress in the Trump Surveillance Case?
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...veillance-case

What's this?

The only constitutionally recognized way the Justice Department can protect such documents from disclosure is if the president claims executive privilege.




Oh noes Rod Rosenstein, OH NOES

You're not able to produce that information because it's some nutty conspiracy site/theory on the internet. You're not able to produce any information or any link to back up any of the nutty claims you made.
The documents you're mentioning in that new link are about aomething else entirely, an attempt by Nunes to get hold of documents that are part of an ongoing investigation. When asked to provide facts and evidence you're just posting random unrelated stuff. So far zero evidence of any of these crazy claims and we both know why.

Here's an actual link to what I said previously:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's ongoing battle with House Republicans reached new heights Tuesday, as the No. 2 senior leader of the Justice Department plans to call on the House to investigate its own committee staff.Rosenstein has butted heads with House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for months over a subpoena for documents related to the Russia investigation, but the battle spilled out into public view Tuesday after Fox News reported staff on the committee felt "personally attacked" at a meeting with Rosenstein in January.
Justice Department officials dispute the recounting of the closed-door meeting detailed in the story, and Rosenstein now plans to "request that the House general counsel conduct an internal investigation of these Congressional staffers' conduct" when he returns from a foreign trip this week, a Justice Department official said.
"The Deputy Attorney General never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation," the official said. "The FBI Director, the senior career ethics adviser for the Department, and the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who were all present at this meeting are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false.
"The Deputy Attorney General was making the point -- after being threatened with contempt -- that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false," the official added. "That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so."
Another former US official, also present at the meeting, agreed that at no time did Rosenstein threaten any House staff with a criminal investigation.
Later Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions came to Rosenstein's defense during an interview with Fox News, saying he was "confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/p...ion/index.html


Come on Lyle. Facts. Evidence. This is some crazy internet conspiracy theory you're parroting, isn't it? If you're not going to provide anything backing all this up, and you're not, let's bet $1000. One of us is going to be broadly right here. Either the evidence is going to show the criminality on the Trump side or Obama, Hillary, Bill, Comey and the rest of the deep state are going to be facing charges relating to conspiring against Trump. Take the bet. The loser has to post a verifiable receipt for $1000 to the charity of the other's choice.

[El Kabong]

You're not able to produce that information because it's some nutty conspiracy site/theory on the internet. You're not able to produce any information or any link to back up any of the nutty claims you made.
The documents you're mentioning in that new link are about aomething else entirely, an attempt by Nunes to get hold of documents that are part of an ongoing investigation. When asked to provide facts and evidence you're just posting random unrelated stuff. So far zero evidence of any of these crazy claims and we both know why.

Here's an actual link to what I said previously:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's ongoing battle with House Republicans reached new heights Tuesday, as the No. 2 senior leader of the Justice Department plans to call on the House to investigate its own committee staff.Rosenstein has butted heads with House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for months over a subpoena for documents related to the Russia investigation, but the battle spilled out into public view Tuesday after Fox News reported staff on the committee felt "personally attacked" at a meeting with Rosenstein in January.
Justice Department officials dispute the recounting of the closed-door meeting detailed in the story, and Rosenstein now plans to "request that the House general counsel conduct an internal investigation of these Congressional staffers' conduct" when he returns from a foreign trip this week, a Justice Department official said.
"The Deputy Attorney General never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation," the official said. "The FBI Director, the senior career ethics adviser for the Department, and the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who were all present at this meeting are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false.
"The Deputy Attorney General was making the point -- after being threatened with contempt -- that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false," the official added. "That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so."
Another former US official, also present at the meeting, agreed that at no time did Rosenstein threaten any House staff with a criminal investigation.
Later Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions came to Rosenstein's defense during an interview with Fox News, saying he was "confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/p...ion/index.html


Come on Lyle. Facts. Evidence. This is some crazy internet conspiracy theory you're parroting, isn't it? If you're not going to provide anything backing all this up, and you're not, let's bet $1000. One of us is going to be broadly right here. Either the evidence is going to show the criminality on the Trump side or Obama, Hillary, Bill, Comey and the rest of the deep state are going to be facing charges relating to conspiring against Trump. Take the bet. The loser has to post a verifiable receipt for $1000 to the charity of the other's choice.

OK then....I guess we'll just see what happens to Rod Rosenstein won't we?


I just got a brand new car, I don't have $1000 just hanging around, you can have some debt though lol