Actually there are no Cons worth engaging in a debate, the dishonesty and hypocrisy is mind boggling at times. The same old lines, the same old memes, childish arguments, no logical consistency - it's a complete waste of time. And they brag about trolling others while calling others troll because they won't swallow the propaganda from some pedophile scammer. Now the argument is that they love Trump because liberals hate him, if that's the logic, why not make Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Madoff their leaders, everyone will hate them and they have exactly the same Republican values.
32 new charges filed against Trump campaign manager and aide. Time to flip or die in prison
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Actually there are no Cons worth engaging in a debate, the dishonesty and hypocrisy is mind boggling at times. The same old lines, the same old memes, childish arguments, no logical consistency - it's a complete waste of time. And they brag about trolling others while calling others troll because they won't swallow the propaganda from some pedophile scammer. Now the argument is that they love Trump because liberals hate him, if that's the logic, why not make Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Madoff their leaders, everyone will hate them and they have exactly the same Republican values.
you cheap little lying dnc troll.
1. I cited a article which called the paper peer reviewed. I looked it up. It was peer reviewed in that it named scientists who had reviewed the paper. But, it was not in a peer reviewed journal. So I deemed it not peer reviewed. you are an asshole to keep bringing that up as I tired to fake anyone out on purpose.
2. you are the asshole who kept saying fox did not say it had federal law enforcement sources.
I repeated cited the fox story in which they claimed federal law enforcement sources. You are the one who kept lying your ass off on the seth rich thread.
3.
There is no way... you are getting out of the lie you wrote below by bullshitting about dates and gates.
You have zero evidence that the indictment says they were laundering dirty russian money.
they were laundering their own money per the indictment. And the indictment cited money from the govt of Ukraine.
IN short you lied you ass off and then you became a dick and lied about other things.
you are back on ignore.
1. I cited a article which called the paper peer reviewed. I looked it up. It was peer reviewed in that it named scientists who had reviewed the paper. But, it was not in a peer reviewed journal. So I deemed it not peer reviewed. you are an asshole to keep bringing that up as I tired to fake anyone out on purpose.
2. you are the asshole who kept saying fox did not say it had federal law enforcement sources.
I repeated cited the fox story in which they claimed federal law enforcement sources. You are the one who kept lying your ass off on the seth rich thread.
3.
There is no way... you are getting out of the lie you wrote below by bullshitting about dates and gates.
You have zero evidence that the indictment says they were laundering dirty russian money.
they were laundering their own money per the indictment. And the indictment cited money from the govt of Ukraine.
IN short you lied you ass off and then you became a dick and lied about other things.
you are back on ignore.
clearing up typos... I was in a rush to get out of the house earlier.
1. I cited an article which called the paper peer reviewed. You questioned it.
I looked it up. The paper was peer reviewed in that it cited scientists who had reviewed the paper. But, it was not in a peer reviewed journal.
So I deemed the paper not peer reviewed.
You are an asshole to keep bringing that up as if I tired to fake anyone out on purpose.
2. You are the asshole who kept saying Fox did not state it had federal law enforcement sources.
I repeatedly cited the fox story in which they claimed federal law enforcement sources. You are the one who kept lying your ass off on the seth rich thread and denying that Fox said it had Federal Law enforcement sources.
3.
There is no way... you are getting out of the lie you wrote below by bullshitting about dates and gates.
You have zero evidence that the indictment says they were laundering dirty russian money.
The indictment indicates they were laundering their own money.
And the indictment stated the earned the money working for the the govt of Ukraine.
IN short you lied you ass off and then you became a dick and lied about other things.
you are back on ignore.[/QUOTE]
1. I cited an article which called the paper peer reviewed. You questioned it.
I looked it up. The paper was peer reviewed in that it cited scientists who had reviewed the paper. But, it was not in a peer reviewed journal.
So I deemed the paper not peer reviewed.
You are an asshole to keep bringing that up as if I tired to fake anyone out on purpose.
2. You are the asshole who kept saying Fox did not state it had federal law enforcement sources.
I repeatedly cited the fox story in which they claimed federal law enforcement sources. You are the one who kept lying your ass off on the seth rich thread and denying that Fox said it had Federal Law enforcement sources.
3.
There is no way... you are getting out of the lie you wrote below by bullshitting about dates and gates.
You have zero evidence that the indictment says they were laundering dirty russian money.
The indictment indicates they were laundering their own money.
And the indictment stated the earned the money working for the the govt of Ukraine.
IN short you lied you ass off and then you became a dick and lied about other things.
you are back on ignore.[/QUOTE]
So you acknowledge it was not peer reviewed and I should not bring it up because it inconveniences you?
I bring it up to show that your standards for proof is very low when it comes to trumpeting your side but when it comes to the left, every single claim has to be specifically mentioned in legal documents
Exactly, I kept saying there were no federal sources and Fox later deleted that story ackowledging it was fake. You repeatedly cited the fake story that they deleted! If I call someone a liar and they acknowledge they are liars, why am i the liar then?
1. Gates was officially working for Trump in 2017 January, already provided links
2. The money was from Russia, specifically Oleg Deripaska, that's the Russian money he got for his Ukraine work
Deripaska's relationship with Manafort began in the mid-2000s, when Manafort was a consultant for a Ukraine-based oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, an associate of ousted president Viktor Yanukovych. The Associated Press reported in March that Manafort signed a $10 million annual contract with Deripaska in 2005, a report that Deripaska denied and later contested in a lawsuit against the AP. In 2008, Rick Gates, a partner of Manafort's, wrote in a memo that Deripaska was considering partnering with the two men to buy the Drake Hotel in Manhattan. But the relationship later soured.By 2014, Deripaska had filed a petition in a Cayman Islands court accusing Manafort and Gates of taking $19 million intended for investment then failing to account for the funds or return them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-about-oleg-deripaska/?utm_term=.9f0d77777bb3
In short, as usual with your lack of knowledge, you lied your ass off and are now being a dick trying to pretend the stories are false which is exactly what you did with the Fox News story.
I predicted the Fox News story was a lie based on contradictory statements but you kept claiming they were true.
In the end Fox deleted the story proving my point correct. Same is happening here because you suck at this.
no troll.
1. you said fox never stated it had federal law enforcement sources. they did... you lied. I showed you the article... multiple times.
2. you said the indictment spoke about laundering dirty russain money. it did not... you lied.
"And these indictments include shit Manafort/Gates did during the campaign/transition. Trump's campaign manager was actively laundering dirty Russian money during Trump's campaign."
1. you said fox never stated it had federal law enforcement sources. they did... you lied. I showed you the article... multiple times.
2. you said the indictment spoke about laundering dirty russain money. it did not... you lied.
"And these indictments include shit Manafort/Gates did during the campaign/transition. Trump's campaign manager was actively laundering dirty Russian money during Trump's campaign."
Last edited:
Look philistine
1. I never said Fox didn't write in their article that they had federal law enforcement, I said they LIED that they talked to one. Why is this simple distinction so hard to understand? And I was right, where ist hat Fox article now? Deleted because they were lying.
2. I never said the indictment mentions Trump campaign, you are lying again. I pointed out that Gates was officially working for Trump during January 2017 which is mentioned in the indictment PROVING that they were engaged in criminal activity while being part of the team
Stop lying and learn to read, imbecile.
How does one know something is wrong . . . . ?
when the GOP says there is no need to investigate it.
Texas GOP lawmaker: No need to probe Trump’s finances because Deutsche Bank is German, not Russian
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who is currently leading the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, told CNN this week that he doesn’t see any need for Congress to scrutinize loans given by Deutsche Bank to President Donald Trump on the grounds that it isn’t a Russian bank.
“I don’t see the link at this stage,” Conaway said, referring to calls to examine whether the Deutsche Bank loans establish financial links between Trump and Russia. “Deutsche Bank is a German bank — I don’t see the nexus… I bet every big bank has a Russian customer somewhere.”
Deutsche Bank last year agreed to pay out $630 million in penalties after getting busted for being involved in a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme that involved its Moscow, New York and London branches.
Deutsche Bank was also the one major bank that was willing to lend Trump money in the late ’90s, after a string of business failures made him toxic for all other Wall Street banks. In total, Trump has roughly $300 million in outstanding debts to Deutsche Bank.
Because of the banks key role in funding both Trump and Russian money laundering operations, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has said that he believes potential links are very much worth examining.
“I think the allegations on money laundering are credible enough that we ought to, in the exercise of due diligence, see if this was one of the other vectors of the Russian active measures campaign,” Schiff said earlier this month. “To me, that is far more potentially compromising than any salacious video would be.”
when the GOP says there is no need to investigate it.
Texas GOP lawmaker: No need to probe Trump’s finances because Deutsche Bank is German, not Russian
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who is currently leading the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, told CNN this week that he doesn’t see any need for Congress to scrutinize loans given by Deutsche Bank to President Donald Trump on the grounds that it isn’t a Russian bank.
“I don’t see the link at this stage,” Conaway said, referring to calls to examine whether the Deutsche Bank loans establish financial links between Trump and Russia. “Deutsche Bank is a German bank — I don’t see the nexus… I bet every big bank has a Russian customer somewhere.”
Deutsche Bank last year agreed to pay out $630 million in penalties after getting busted for being involved in a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme that involved its Moscow, New York and London branches.
Deutsche Bank was also the one major bank that was willing to lend Trump money in the late ’90s, after a string of business failures made him toxic for all other Wall Street banks. In total, Trump has roughly $300 million in outstanding debts to Deutsche Bank.
Because of the banks key role in funding both Trump and Russian money laundering operations, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has said that he believes potential links are very much worth examining.
“I think the allegations on money laundering are credible enough that we ought to, in the exercise of due diligence, see if this was one of the other vectors of the Russian active measures campaign,” Schiff said earlier this month. “To me, that is far more potentially compromising than any salacious video would be.”
If Trump has committed crimes. And they can be investigated with breaking the Constitution. go for it.
The idiocy of his logic is only surpassed by the constituents who buy into it.
JEM factcheck update...
1. ExGoper lied when he wrote...
"And these indictments include shit Manafort/Gates did during the campaign/transition. Trump's campaign manager was actively laundering dirty Russian money during Trump's campaign."
pro tip...
(remember if the falsely named foreign troll responds... as aforeigner he could not be an exGoper)
I was not saying that Mueller did not obtain loans fraudulently... we stated that the indictment did not allege that mannafort was laundering dirty russian money during the campaign.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nuous-link-between-manafort-charges-and-trump
Mueller's response was two-fold. On the issue of collusion, the special counsel, in a motion filed July 6, flatly said, "The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government and, accordingly does not oppose the defendant's motion in that respect."
To those Trump opponents who had hoped Mueller would unveil evidence of Trump-Russia collusion involving Manafort, it was a sharp and stunning admission: there's no collusion in the case against Manafort.
But Mueller did argue that the case has something to do with Trump. And this is it:
Most of the 32 counts against Manafort in the Virginia case concern alleged crimes that took place long before there was a Trump campaign. Some go back as far as 2006. But four of the counts involve a pair of loans Manafort took out between April 2016 and January 2017. For a few months during that time period, Manafort worked for the Trump campaign.
The loans totaled $16 million and came from a financial institution Mueller refers to as Lender D. According to Mueller, Manafort lied to get the loans, overstating his income and understating his debts.
Mueller says that some workers at Lender D knew there was a problem with Manafort's application, but that one top executive there, a man who wanted a place in the Trump campaign, granted the loan anyway. From the Mueller filing:
"The government intends to present evidence that although various Lender D employees identified serious issues with the defendant's loan application, the senior executive at Lender D interceded in the process and approved the loan. During the loan application process, the senior executive expressed interest in working on the Trump campaign, told the defendant about his interest, and eventually secured a position advising the Trump campaign. The senior executive later expressed an interest in serving in the administration of President Trump, but did not secure such a position."
The lending company and the senior executive are not identified in the indictment, but the loans appear to fit an episode reported in the New York Times involving a small bank in Chicago, the Federal Savings Bank, and its chief executive, Stephen Calk, who was named an economic adviser to the Trump campaign in August 2016 but did not join the administration.
(MORE: Mueller's team expected to present evidence connecting Trump's campaign to Paul Manafort's trial)
In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller is investigating whether the loans were "made as part of a quid pro quo arrangement to secure Mr. Calk a job in Mr. Trump's administration." Calk has denied any such arrangement.
In any event, Mueller has not suggested that Donald Trump was involved in any of the actions outlined in the Manafort charges. The two Lender D loans are, apparently, the only connection between the Trump campaign and the broad array of criminal activity, some of it more than a decade old, alleged in the Manafort indictments. And Trump himself played no role in it.
Was a special counsel needed for that?
1. ExGoper lied when he wrote...
"And these indictments include shit Manafort/Gates did during the campaign/transition. Trump's campaign manager was actively laundering dirty Russian money during Trump's campaign."
pro tip...
(remember if the falsely named foreign troll responds... as aforeigner he could not be an exGoper)
I was not saying that Mueller did not obtain loans fraudulently... we stated that the indictment did not allege that mannafort was laundering dirty russian money during the campaign.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nuous-link-between-manafort-charges-and-trump
Mueller's response was two-fold. On the issue of collusion, the special counsel, in a motion filed July 6, flatly said, "The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government and, accordingly does not oppose the defendant's motion in that respect."
To those Trump opponents who had hoped Mueller would unveil evidence of Trump-Russia collusion involving Manafort, it was a sharp and stunning admission: there's no collusion in the case against Manafort.
But Mueller did argue that the case has something to do with Trump. And this is it:
Most of the 32 counts against Manafort in the Virginia case concern alleged crimes that took place long before there was a Trump campaign. Some go back as far as 2006. But four of the counts involve a pair of loans Manafort took out between April 2016 and January 2017. For a few months during that time period, Manafort worked for the Trump campaign.
The loans totaled $16 million and came from a financial institution Mueller refers to as Lender D. According to Mueller, Manafort lied to get the loans, overstating his income and understating his debts.
Mueller says that some workers at Lender D knew there was a problem with Manafort's application, but that one top executive there, a man who wanted a place in the Trump campaign, granted the loan anyway. From the Mueller filing:
"The government intends to present evidence that although various Lender D employees identified serious issues with the defendant's loan application, the senior executive at Lender D interceded in the process and approved the loan. During the loan application process, the senior executive expressed interest in working on the Trump campaign, told the defendant about his interest, and eventually secured a position advising the Trump campaign. The senior executive later expressed an interest in serving in the administration of President Trump, but did not secure such a position."
The lending company and the senior executive are not identified in the indictment, but the loans appear to fit an episode reported in the New York Times involving a small bank in Chicago, the Federal Savings Bank, and its chief executive, Stephen Calk, who was named an economic adviser to the Trump campaign in August 2016 but did not join the administration.
(MORE: Mueller's team expected to present evidence connecting Trump's campaign to Paul Manafort's trial)
In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller is investigating whether the loans were "made as part of a quid pro quo arrangement to secure Mr. Calk a job in Mr. Trump's administration." Calk has denied any such arrangement.
In any event, Mueller has not suggested that Donald Trump was involved in any of the actions outlined in the Manafort charges. The two Lender D loans are, apparently, the only connection between the Trump campaign and the broad array of criminal activity, some of it more than a decade old, alleged in the Manafort indictments. And Trump himself played no role in it.
Was a special counsel needed for that?