Michael Flynn expected to plea GUILTY! LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!

bigticket1

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Can we get Sheriff David Clark to be the lead agent investigating Trump like Hillary had Agent Strzok in all her’s?
He's probably too busy looking for more fake medals to sew on his jacket. Easier to find bright shiny objects during the Holiday season.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
Nicole wallace NBC News political analyst and former The View co-host is expanding her role with the network as host of a new weekday program on MSNBC. Weekdays at 4. This is pretty simple stuff you don't seem to be able to figure out. Care to admit you were wrong... again? Don't worry I know you won't but everyone already knows you are a joke.
Nope, you were right that Nicole Wallace (renowned Trump hater) has a show she shares with Steve Kornacki (whoever he is).

Maybe I’ll watch it to see how much Conservative love she’s giving out.

The main point is that networks outside of Fox News have very little (not “no”) Conservative representation on air and are made up of primarily Democrat or Liberal hosts.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Nope, you were right that Nicole Wallace (renowned Trump hater) has a show she shares with Steve Kornacki (whoever he is).

Maybe I’ll watch it to see how much Conservative love she’s giving out.

The main point is that networks outside of Fox News have very little (not “no”) Conservative representation on air and are made up of primarily Democrat or Liberal hosts.
It's probably not worth watching if a conservative hosts it :)
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Where is Howie? I didn't go thru the whole thread, but Russia Collusion accuser #1 must have some thoughts on all these developments. Not following the whole story super close. Were all those "coincidences" proven to lead to collusion with Russia to steal the election?
It looks increasingly that way, yes. Campaign manager indicted. National Security pleads guilty. Other member of national security team pleads guilty. And this is the tip if the iceberg. But you don't care. The guy you passionately defend daily (but totally didn't vote for) won.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Nope, you were right that Nicole Wallace (renowned Trump hater) has a show she shares with Steve Kornacki (whoever he is).

Maybe I’ll watch it to see how much Conservative love she’s giving out.

The main point is that networks outside of Fox News have very little (not “no”) Conservative representation on air and are made up of primarily Democrat or Liberal hosts.
So basically you'll declare that anyone not on Fox News is a "trump hater" or "not a real conservative" and therefore you're right. Got it. Just because there are a few R's with enough decency to be shocked and disturbed by what the party has turned into under Trump doesn't mean they're not conservative. Unless conservative only = supporting Trump now. Which I guess it does.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
So basically you'll declare that anyone not on Fox News is a "trump hater" or "not a real conservative" and therefore you're right. Got it. Just because there are a few R's with enough decency to be shocked and disturbed by what the party has turned into under Trump doesn't mean they're not conservative. Unless conservative only = supporting Trump now. Which I guess it does.
When you use quotation marks, that means that you are quoting someone. I didn’t say anyone is “not a real conservative”. I said Nicole Wallace isn’t representative of the majority of Republicans or Conservatives. If I were guessing, I’d saying she sold out to make a buck.

Hugh Hewitt, I like.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It looks increasingly that way, yes. Campaign manager indicted. National Security pleads guilty. Other member of national security team pleads guilty. And this is the tip if the iceberg. But you don't care. The guy you passionately defend daily (but totally didn't vote for) won.
Indicted for conspiracy to steal the election and collude with russia? Plead guilty to collusion? Treason? What kinds of indictments and charges are we talking about here?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,090
Reaction score
293
Points
83
Indicted for conspiracy to steal the election and collude with russia? Plead guilty to collusion? Treason? What kinds of indictments and charges are we talking about here?
We might need a Benghazi length investigation to prove his innocence. And when/if nothing is found......we can continue to assume he's guilty. You righties love that tactic.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Indicted for conspiracy to steal the election and collude with russia? Plead guilty to collusion? Treason? What kinds of indictments and charges are we talking about here?
It's the first three dominoes in a chain. It's totally normal for your campaign chair and national security adviser to be indicted for lying to the FBI, right? No big deal! The President's legal team is already arguing that it doesn't matter if Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice. Hmm, wonder why they'd do that.

You can spike the ball and declare victory while trailing by 10 in the 2nd quarter if you want. Won't make it true. You don't care if Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. May as well focus on more issues you are passionate about like the freedom of cake bakers to shun gays and refuse to publish nutritional info.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
We might need a Benghazi length investigation to prove his innocence. And when/if nothing is found......we can continue to assume he's guilty. You righties love that tactic.
Well stated.[emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It's the first three dominoes in a chain. It's totally normal for your campaign chair and national security adviser to be indicted for lying to the FBI, right? No big deal! The President's legal team is already arguing that it doesn't matter if Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice. Hmm, wonder why they'd do that.

You can spike the ball and declare victory while trailing by 10 in the 2nd quarter if you want. Won't make it true. You don't care if Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. May as well focus on more issues you are passionate about like the freedom of cake bakers to shun gays and refuse to publish nutritional info.
Who said no big deal? I think it’s a big deal.

Link to “doesn’t matter if he colluded with Russia” from his legal team please.

I absolutely do care if Trump did that.

I’m passionate about liberty and will defend it always. I could choose not to defend liberty in trivial matters, but I do anyway because I think consistency is important and principles are important. Otherwise you’re left with positions like “this is what everyone thinks” or “this is more realistic”.

You seem awfully defensive.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
We might need a Benghazi length investigation to prove his innocence. And when/if nothing is found......we can continue to assume he's guilty. You righties love that tactic.
I didn’t need an investigation to know that Obama and Hillary lied about the attack on Benghazi to push a political narrative and nobody cared. And now we have a president who lies and nobody on the other side cares.

Benghazi to me was never about much else. Did she ignore the dangers? Sure she did. She has bad judgement and is a bad leader. But it was the brazen Susan Rice and Hillary lies that bothered me most. Clear as day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Who said no big deal? I think it’s a big deal.

Link to “doesn’t matter if he colluded with Russia” from his legal team please.

I absolutely do care if Trump did that.

I’m passionate about liberty and will defend it always. I could choose not to defend liberty in trivial matters, but I do anyway because I think consistency is important and principles are important. Otherwise you’re left with positions like “this is what everyone thinks” or “this is more realistic”.

You seem awfully defensive.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because your attempts to play dumb about this (and other things)"I'm not following it" are disingenuous. If you care and think it's serious, pay attention to sources outside the right-wing echo chamber instead of trolling Gopherhole.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
I didn’t need an investigation to know that Obama and Hillary lied about the attack on Benghazi to push a political narrative and nobody cared. And now we have a president who lies and nobody on the other side cares.

Benghazi to me was never about much else. Did she ignore the dangers? Sure she did. She has bad judgement and is a bad leader. But it was the brazen Susan Rice and Hillary lies that bothered me most. Clear as day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You do realize a lie is quite different from bad intel or a mistake.....right? You do know Ambassador Stevens turn down added security.....twice....right? We spent YEARS investigating Benghazi with nary a charge and you still choose to believe Clinton is guilty. We have spent less than a year investigating Trump and we already have several guilty pleas yet you choose to believe Trump is NOT guilty?[emoji848]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Because your attempts to play dumb about this (and other things)"I'm not following it" are disingenuous. If you care and think it's serious, pay attention to sources outside the right-wing echo chamber instead of trolling Gopherhole.
My source is never trumpers who say it’s over, no collusion, and the obstruction charge won’t stick.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
You do realize a lie is quite different from bad intel or a mistake.....right? You do know Ambassador Stevens turn down added security.....twice....right? We spent YEARS investigating Benghazi with nary a charge and you still choose to believe Clinton is guilty. We have spent less than a year investigating Trump and we already have several guilty pleas yet you choose to believe Trump is NOT guilty?[emoji848]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wait. Stevens turned down security twice? Nope, hadn’t heard that.
Clinton is guilty of lying on Benghazi. I think it’s likely that he whole thing was botched by her also, but people make mistakes.

The Russia collusion narrative has never been believable to me at all. It doesn’t make sense. The guilty pleas are unrelated. Possible of course. But mainly, it’s people who hate trump so much that they will believe anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,090
Reaction score
293
Points
83
Wait. Stevens turned down security twice? Nope, hadn’t heard that.
Clinton is guilty of lying on Benghazi. I think it’s likely that he whole thing was botched by her also, but people make mistakes.

The Russia collusion narrative has never been believable to me at all. It doesn’t make sense. The guilty pleas are unrelated. Possible of course. But mainly, it’s people who hate trump so much that they will believe anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course it's not believable. Because you don't want it to be. You are a right wing shill who gets "news" from the most biased of sources.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Of course it's not believable. Because you don't want it to be. You are a right wing shill who gets "news" from the most biased of sources.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Of course it’s believable. Because you want it to be. You are a Democrat shill who gets l”news” from the most biased sources.

See? Substance free insults. Like always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,090
Reaction score
293
Points
83
Of course it’s believable. Because you want it to be. You are a Democrat shill who gets l”news” from the most biased sources.

See? Substance free insults. Like always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Feel free to believe you provide "substance". It's mostly regurgitated misinformation or nonsense theory. It's a waste of space on the internet.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
Mueller has subpoena'd Trump's records with Deutsche Bank who has loaned him hundreds of millions. The same Deutsche Bank that paid hundreds of millions in fines to the state of New York for Russian money laundering. The same investigation has gone dormant on the Federal level ever since the Trump administration started. More innocent coincidences.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mueller-issues-subpoena-deutsche-bank-russia-probe/story?id=51586918
It should be pointed out that this is/was FAKE NEWS. Didn’t happen. I’m surprised you left this up after it was verified BS. Just more inaccurate info from ABC.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/mueller-reportedly-subpoenas-deutsche-bank-in-russia-probe.html

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the special counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false," said Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team. “No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources.”
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
It should be pointed out that this is/was FAKE NEWS. Didn’t happen. I’m surprised you left this up after it was verified BS. Just more inaccurate info from ABC.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/mueller-reportedly-subpoenas-deutsche-bank-in-russia-probe.html

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the special counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false," said Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team. “No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources.”
Lol. It's not FAKE NEWS. Multiple outlets have reported it. You're choosing to believe Trump's lawyers and Fox News and claim everyone else is lying. I'm shocked. At best they requested the info voluntarily without subpoenaing it and Trump's lawyers are trying to scream 'fake news!' over a technicality. And you're spinning the company line as always.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
My source is never trumpers who say it’s over, no collusion, and the obstruction charge won’t stick.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh. And who's that? There are plenty of Never Trumpers who don't say that.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Wait. Stevens turned down security twice? Nope, hadn’t heard that.
Clinton is guilty of lying on Benghazi. I think it’s likely that he whole thing was botched by her also, but people make mistakes.

The Russia collusion narrative has never been believable to me at all. It doesn’t make sense. The guilty pleas are unrelated. Possible of course. But mainly, it’s people who hate trump so much that they will believe anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmmmmm I’m backing off Stevens turned down help once or twice. Below is where I got it from but I have read counter positions that state otherwise.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24749134.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
One other thing occurred to me. The Trumpists in this thread maintain it was totally normal and appropriate for Flynn to talk to Kislyak about ending sanctions when Trump took over. You know who disagrees with you? Not just hysterical liberals, but 98 US Senators and 419 US Representatives.

That level of bipartisanship is so uncommon that you really have to stop and think, "Who's more likely to be right, 99.04% of US Congressmen, or the star of the Apprentice who refuses to provide his tax returns?"
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
One other thing occurred to me. The Trumpists in this thread maintain it was totally normal and appropriate for Flynn to talk to Kislyak about ending sanctions when Trump took over. You know who disagrees with you? Not just hysterical liberals, but 98 US Senators and 419 US Representatives.

That level of bipartisanship is so uncommon that you really have to stop and think, "Who's more likely to be right, 99.04% of US Congressmen, or the star of the Apprentice who refuses to provide his tax returns?"
link to claim please
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Hmmmmm I’m backing off Stevens turned down help once or twice. Below is where I got it from but I have read counter positions that state otherwise.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24749134.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pssst, sporty. He formally requested additional security at least twice and was turned down. Hillary didn't want more people there that would know that Hillary/Obama were illegally running guns to ISIS. A lot more guns to ISIS than to the Mexican drug cartels.
 
Top Bottom