How many ran scam universities, never released their tax returns, lies pathologically?
Megathread: Super Guilty Tuesday
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
How many ran scam universities, never released their tax returns, lies pathologically?
He doesn't lie.... he just exaggerates. Plus many of Trump U's grads went on to make huge fortunes in RE. If you think he's gonna be impeached over some chicken-sh*t payout to a former lover.... just don't hold your breath because you're pissing in the wind bro.
Its time for you to get behind Trump and MAGA.
Oh come on, he makes up things that never happened, he knows the facts and yet he continues to lie to rile up his base/stroke his ego. And there were no 'graduates' from Trump U since it was never an actual university, people who designed the course themselves said that the claims were exaggerated and the info was mundane.
And by the way, he is gonna impeached for serious financial crimes - if you think only Cohen, Manafort and Gates were doing all this, then you have no idea about Trump's history.
It's time for you to admit that you are not good at research/ethics/logical reasoning/fact checking etc. Character is the most important thing in a man, if you cant discern that then you are hopeless.
C'mon man, you're smarter than that. If you and I are running a campaign against each other, and are given a budget to do so from which we can't deviate (or in the US, a budget which we must campaign for in the form of donations), and we both have a similar sized scandal, and you get an extra helping from a buddy to keep it shut and I don't, not only will I get hurt politically, but you also ended up having "extra" money to buy adverts/campaign with since it was undisclosed.
That's why we have electoral laws, to keep it "fair". That's why this is a crime, because it tips an election one way.
Thats why you don't see me running for office.
Like I said.... they're all crooked.
Christ almighty Exgophr.... at least there's not a trail of dead bodies down 5th Ave. Wiki Arkansas. Your boy Bill was disbarred and got a blowjob from an intern. That means nothing to you?
Come on... I'll call a spade a spade if you do. Trump's a playboy and a bullshitter..... just like Clinton.
He's not getting impeached.... trade accordingly. Nothing will stop this bull.
So you won't believe the evidence on Trump but I should look up kooky Clinton conspiracies?
Have I railed against Trump's extra marital affairs? Who cares.
The problem is the corruption, the constant lying, I mean, just follow the threads and there is an update everyday almost. If you don't see the difference between Clinton/Nixon/Bush vs Trump, it's pointless to explain.
There are probably no living politicians, including Donald Trump, that have been investigated more times on more alleged crimes than the Clintons, nor have been subjected to more disinformation and smear campaigns nor more vehemently disliked by their political enemies than the Clintons. Although no such investigation of alleged wrong doing by the Clintons could find enough evidence to result in an indictment, one investigation led by special counsel Kenneth Starr did result in President Bill Clinton's impeachment. This was the well known Paula Jones/monica Lewinski affair, some of the particulars of which I have copied from Mr. Starr's Report and appended.
President Clinton was not convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the Senate, and that impeachment would not seem to be relevant to the statement that the "Clinton Machine is Crooked." A unbiased observer must conclude that such a general statement is not supportable by anything in the record. That, in fairness, is about all one can say. Anything beyond this is pure conjecture and apparently without substantiation.
Here is an excerpt of relevant portions of the Starr Report: (The full Report may be read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/5intro.htm#L2 )
[Please note, I have underlined and put into italics a portion of the report that may be particularly relevant with regard to the Trump Presidency at the present time.]
...
In May 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.(2) Ms. Jones alleged that while he was the Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock hotel room.(3) President Clinton denied the allegations. He also challenged the ability of a private litigant to pursue a lawsuit against a sitting President. In May 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's legal argument. The Court concluded that Ms. Jones, "[l]ike every other citizen who properly invokes [the District Court's] jurisdiction . . . has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," and that therefore Ms. Jones was entitled to pursue her claims while the President was in office.(4) A few months later, the pretrial discovery process began.(5)
One sharply disputed issue in the Jones litigation was the extent to which the President would be required to disclose information about sexual relationships he may have had with "other women." Ms. Jones's attorneys sought disclosure of this information, arguing that it was relevant to proving that the President had propositioned Ms. Jones. The President resisted the discovery requests, arguing that evidence of relationships with other women (if any) was irrelevant.
In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright's decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: "The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees."(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the President must respond.
In mid-December 1997, the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women who were state or federal employees and with whom he had had "sexual relations" since 1986,(7) the President answered under oath: "None."(8) For purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual relations" was not defined.
On January 17, 1998, President Clinton was questioned under oath about his relationships with other women in the workplace, this time at a deposition. Judge Wright presided over the deposition. The President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, by then a 24-year-old former White House intern, White House employee, and Pentagon employee. Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President denied that he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The President also stated that he had no specific memory of having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that he remembered few details of any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no one except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Lewinsky's status as a potential witness in the Jones case.
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC" or "Office") hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.(1)
The information reveals that President Clinton:
- lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit;
- lied under oath to a grand jury;
- attempted to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony;
- attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena;
- attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that false affidavit at his own deposition;
- lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and
- engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
...
I was doing that alright.
Now despite the fact that he has it ass backwards but it does not matter as his supporters are pinheads, his voice and general flapping is great here.
"I tweeted about it, I don't know if you know but I tweeted about the payments, but.."
His "first question where he heard about it".. but the tape where he!? you say? He is not speaking to you, he is speaking to his saps.
Last edited:
Wall Street Journal: “The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office had testimony from Mr. Cohen’s accountant and business partners, along with bank records, tax filings and loan applications that implicated not only Mr. Cohen in potential criminal activity, but also his wife, who filed taxes jointly with her husband. Prosecutors signaled Mr. Cohen would face nearly 20 criminal counts, potentially carrying a lengthy prison sentence and staggering financial penalties.”
”Adding to the pressure, David Pecker, the chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, provided prosecutors with details about payments Mr. Cohen arranged with women who alleged sexual encounters with President Trump, including Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the deals.”