So much rationalization for one post.
Anyway, it’s been very interesting to watch a pattern of behavior emerge among Trump and everyone around him where ever single individual lied about their contacts with Russians.
Discrediting anything in the dossier would be a good start to poking holes in the pee tape.
Trump’s immediate response to learning about the tape was “do I look like a guy who needs hookers?” How is that the response of an innocent man? Pretty obvious to me some kind of video exists.
Doug: The problem with your argument is that is not how American law works. We are talking about conspiracy here; and the conspiracy law applies if two parties discuss committing a crime, regardless of whether the crime was carried out. Offering something of value to a person of influence in a foreign deal is a bribe… plain and simple. Your argument that since the payment was intended to create influence it was not a bribe… its not much of an argument frankly.
Furthermore, the Trump Tower deal was active when Trump was lying about it so there were business dealings going on. Your argument would seem to be equivalent to saying that since Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky ended before the Starr investigation uncovered it, there was no affair. I mean really, why do I have to bother to point these things out?
You are right about one thing, Trump is not devastated about being caught in lies. Looking at his marriages, business dealing and lying, it appears he has no moral compass whatsoever. That’s your defense of his Presidency!
8 Likes
Trump’s inability to feel shame or embarrassment is irrelevant. If Russia had kompromat on Hillary or Obama or any democrat, you guys would be losing your ■■■■■
1 Like
You don’t know what WTB has or has not financed for trump.
You also don’t know if he offered teh penthouse.
And you don’t know if they had a deal or not.
This is just me spitballing. Don’t like trump, didn’t vote for him, and won’t.
But the story said his phone was briefly pinged there. Was he on a trip somewhere else at the time? Could it have been a refueling stop or change of planes?
The “briefly pinged” part just gives me pause to count this as proof of anything till more info comes out.
Cohen vehemently denied ever being to Prague. You don’t accidentally find yourself in Prague.
Whatever! You don’t know me! You don’t know my life!
1 Like
briefly pinged seems to me that the phone was turned off most of the time and just quickly turned on to check for messages or something…
1 Like
I don’t like how this conversation is going.
That much you do have. Whether that leads to anything except a bunch of politicians who think its ok to lie remains to be seen. Some like to fill in the blanks, I’ll wait for the truth.
I get where you are coming from.
I am on your side.
Something of this magnitude has to be confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Because placing Cohen in Prague during 2016 means very bad things for the President… things that rhymes with bleason.
That is not something that is that one comes towards lightly.
Good on you. Here I thought you were in favor of shutting down the investigation. Glad to see you’ve come around. Unless I was mistaken all along. Could be thinking of someone else.
I’m with this too. If the Prague meeting really happened, this immediately gets a million times more serious than it already is. Then it isn’t just about white collar crime and morons running a campaign.
Gotta admit, this Steele guy apparently had pretty good sources overall.
My guess would be that he accidentally turned onthat cell phone out of habit rather than look at his burner phone. He had an immediate “oh ■■■■■ moment before turning it off.
At this point there is going to be no shutting down the investigation, so arguing for it is irrelevant.
Finding out why it started in the first place is another issue.
“Credible allegations of wrongdoing.”
We already know the answer to your question.
Hmmmm. They’d be able to find his burner phone, too, assuming it connected to the same tower around the same time.
They also have to plan the crime and a prosecutor must prove firm intent. Which may well happen but I thought it important to point out.
