Russia Collusion Megathread v11: This Is It

Status
Not open for further replies.
He said he would answer questions under oath. He said it multiple times. Everyone can hear the audio.

Correct. That's what I'm saying. The NYT is suggesting that he was playing around with the term, and giving himself the Hillary Clinton rules. IE: Not actually under oath.

He said he would answer questions under oath. The only caveat he made, was that he said he would take his lawyers advice above all else.
 
I've never lied a single time on this forum. I'll retire my account if you can show me having lied before.

Uh. You called me a lying piece of shit for saying people called for the deaths of Alabama citizens in this forum. After you posted that you were given multiple posts supporting my claim

Do the math. You called me a liar on something. I proved I wasn't. Therefore you lied.

Good bye Homer. Retire your account
 
Could you be more specific?
Everyone investing 1 minute into this shit is getting worked. On both sides.

Youre better off watching the royal rumble this Sunday. Atleast the wwe isnt insulting your intelligence.
 
Not to mention that it's irrelevant. Mueller is going to question him under oath. He has the authority to do it, and it'll be glorious.
tenor.gif
 
Uh. You called me a lying piece of shit for saying people called for the deaths of Alabama citizens in this forum. After you posted that you were given multiple posts supporting my claim

Do the math. You called me a liar on something. I proved I wasn't. Therefore you lied.

Good bye Homer. Retire your account
giphy.gif
 
Correct. That's what I'm saying. The NYT is suggesting that he was playing around with the term, and giving himself the Hillary Clinton rules. IE: Not actually under oath.

He said he would answer questions under oath. The only caveat he made, was that he said he would take his lawyers advice above all else.

It's showing that he's still using his office to try and persecute his political rival.

Hillary has nothing to do with this.

The President is trying to use his office to persecute a political rival.

This might not be a big deal in Canuckistan but in the US this is kind of a big deal.

This country tossed off the shackles of tyranny and doesn't put the faces of monarchs on our currency.

You might not understand that.
 
It's showing that he's still using his office to try and persecute his political rival.

Hillary has nothing to do with this.

The President is trying to use his office to persecute a political rival.

Wait, is she a political rival, or irrelevant?

This might not be a big deal in Canuckistan but in the US this is kind of a big deal.

This country tossed off the shackles of tyranny and doesn't put the faces of monarchs on our currency.

You might not understand that.

Take a Xanax.
 
It's showing that he's still using his office to try and persecute his political rival.

Hillary has nothing to do with this.

The President is trying to use his office to persecute a political rival.

This might not be a big deal in Canuckistan but in the US this is kind of a big deal.

This country tossed off the shackles of tyranny and doesn't put the faces of monarchs on our currency.

You might not understand that.
<{dayum}>
 
The answer to those questions are irrelevant given recent revelations. You have to actually address tand explain those revelations before you can change the narrative again.

Can't get the bat off of your shoulder there, hey slugger? Or since this is Sherdog, maybe a Khalib Starnes reference would be more appropriate for your unwillingness to engage a simple question?
th


As for your request to explain those "revelations," the fact that Trump's appointee at the DOJ, Stephen Boyd, after looking at all of the same classified material that Nunes is trying to get you credulous bullshit eaters to eat to keep you from focusing on the 4 people from the Trump campaign already being in serious legal jeopardy and the obstruction of justice case that is progressing against Trump for his trying to protect them (at best, at worst, trying to protect his family members and or himself), stated "the Justice Department is unaware of any wrongdoing" related to the FISA process. The fact that you taking seriously anything Nunes is peddling is ridiculous. Now try to answer my question, if you are not chicken, but please go brush the bullshit off of your teeth first.

th
 
Can't get the bat off of your shoulder there, hey slugger? Or since this is Sherdog, maybe a Khalib Starnes reference would be more appropriate for your unwillingness to engage a simple question?
th


As for your request to explain those "revelations," the fact that Trump's appointee at the DOJ, Stephen Boyd, after looking at all of the same classified material that Nunes is trying to get you credulous bullshit eaters to eat to keep you from focusing on the 4 people from the Trump campaign already being in serious legal jeopardy and the obstruction of justice case that is progressing against Trump for his trying to protect them (at best, at worst, trying to protect his family members and or himself), stated "the Justice Department is unaware of any wrongdoing" related to the FISA process. The fact that you taking seriously anything Nunes is peddling is ridiculous. Now try to answer my question, if you are not chicken, but please go brush the bullshit off of your teeth first.

th

You still haven't addressed the revelations. Going on a Don Lemon tangent about how incredulous you think the revelations are is not addressing them.

As far as I'm concerned the truth is coming out and I have no reason to engage in your fantasy land Russian CTs. That is unless you address and explain the recent revelations and show how they, combined with the events from the past 2 years, don't show this to be the witch hunt coup attempt we've all been calling it. Don't be scared man.
 
You still haven't addressed the revelations. Going on a Don Lemon tangent about how incredulous you think the revelations are is not addressing them.

As far as I'm concerned the truth is coming out and I have no reason to engage in your fantasy land Russian CTs. That is unless you address and explain the recent revelations and show how they, combined with the events from the past 2 years, don't show this to be the witch hunt coup attempt we've all been calling it. Don't be scared man.

I addressed the memo issue (unless somehow Trump's choice for assistant AG is now somehow part of the deep state conspiracy:eek:), what else are you right wing nut jobs on about this week?

As far as a witch hunt, dude you already have 2 guilty pleas who have flipped to lessen jail time, one who is about to flip, Paul Manafort who is in serious trouble and is going down, and Trump telling the Russians that firing the head of the FBI (who testified that Trump tried to get him to pledge loyalty and let Flynn off the hook) relieved great pressure, which goes a long way in a possible obstruction of justice case, given the guilty pleas of the people he has trying to shield from justice. And check your metaphor rube, you don't find 4 real witches (and possibly the head witch and their kids) in a suspected coven.

And that is twice you have ducked my question
th

<209Bitch>
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/politics/trump-mueller.html



So much crazy. Of course his lawyer had to jump in and clarify that Trump wasn't going to be interviewed under oath (not that it matters, since lying to the FBI is a crime without being under oath).

President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing and eager to be interviewed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, insisting that he has done nothing wrong.

“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump said of talking to Mr. Mueller, answering months of speculation over whether he was willing to submit to questions from the special counsel, who is also believed to be looking into whether the Trump campaign aided Moscow’s effort and whether the president sought to thwart the inquiry itself.

“Here’s the story, just so you understand,” Mr. Trump said during an impromptu question-and-answer session with reporters in the West Wing. “There’s been no collusion whatsoever. There’s no obstruction whatsoever, and I’m looking forward to it.”

...

People familiar with Mr. Trump’s thinking have long described private conversations with the president in which he has said he is eager to meet with Mr. Mueller, a product of his belief that he can sell or coax almost anyone into seeing things his way.

“I would love to do that — I’d like to do it as soon as possible,” the president told reporters on Wednesday of the prospect of being interviewed by Mr. Mueller, adding that his lawyers have told him it would be “about two to three weeks” until it takes place. Almost as an afterthought, he added, any such interview would be “subject to my lawyers, and all of that.”

Many of the potential questions relate to whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice, people briefed on the discussions have said. They have said they expect the interview to be completed by the end of February or early March.

Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer leading the response to the investigation, said Mr. Trump was speaking hurriedly and intended only to say that he was willing to meet.


“He’s ready to meet with them, but he’ll be guided by the advice of his personal counsel,” Mr. Cobb said. He said the arrangements were being worked out between Mr. Mueller’s team and the president’s personal lawyers.

...

Pressed on whether he would be willing to answer questions under oath, Mr. Trump first asked a reporter whether Hillary Clinton, his 2016 campaign rival, had done so in the investigation into her use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton gave a voluntary interview to F.B.I. investigators in July 2016, and was not under oath, as is typical for such sessions.

...

Mr. Trump also said that he did not recall questioning Andrew G. McCabe, the deputy F.B.I. director, during a job interview about how he voted in the 2016 presidential election, after White House officials conceded on Tuesday that the president had, in fact, asked the question.

“I don’t think so; no, I don’t think I did,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “I don’t know what’s the big deal with that.”

...

As he wrapped up the session, the president asked one TV reporter to make sure she aired a “nice piece” about him, expressing his frustration that journalists do not acknowledge his strength as a candidate.

“There’s no collusion,” Mr. Trump said as he left. “I couldn’t have cared less about Russians having to do with my campaign.”

“The fact is, you people won’t say this, but I’ll say it: I was a much better candidate than her,” the president went on, referring to Mrs. Clinton. “You always say she was a bad candidate; you never say I was a good candidate. I was one of the greatest candidates.”

Full article at link. I only quoted the juicy (stupid) parts.
 
Someone make a v12 that links v11 in the OP. Also, if you are going to make the v12 thread, please consider putting some effort into the OP with new developments/articles/etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top