Ok Jesus. Enough of your parables and charades. Are you a real person?
Originally Posted by Hotrod511
- themystic
- 01-13-2018, 10:54 PM
- themystic
- 01-13-2018, 11:03 PM
Give me a fucking break IB. Dear Kettle / Pot. Youre black to
The Huffy article is a POS left-wing garbage and substantiates nothing, mistake. It's hyperbolic bullshit, mistake: scribbles on a page, like a blind man connecting dots with a crayon in the dark, mistake.
Ted Kennedy killed a woman and the dim-retards made him a Senator for life, mistake. hildebeest got an American ambassador killed and ran her for president, mistake. dim-retards lack the social values to moralize about how Republicans vote, mistake. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
IB do you remember a guy named Richard Nixon? Did he exhibit the special social values and morals you Republicans hold so dear to you're hearts?
Or was it Denny Hastert Speaker of House 1999-2007. Described by a judge as a serial child molester
Is this where i espouse the morals and values of Roy Moore? You know the Alabama judge who likes under age girls
Jesus Fucking Christ!! What about old pussy grabber himself!
I know i gave you some red meat. " How date mistake say Jesus Fucking Christ ...blah blah blah
- NoTell
- 01-13-2018, 11:31 PM
Just for fun, Ill play along IB. Hear that IB? Thats me pulling my head out of my ass. The Feds indicted 11 people, there are 3 million unregistered voters, Hillary & Obama are selling uranium to Russians, etc, etc. Big stories for 2015-2016.Who is going to prosecute these people?
Would you like to play along and pull your head out of you're ass as well, IB?
1. Trump is President, not Obama or Hillary
2. Mike Flynn has been indicted as a result of the Russian investigation
3. Paul Manafort has been indicted as a result of the Russian investigation
4. George Papadopoulos has already been convicted as a result of the Russian investigation
5. Mike Pence has point blank lied about his involvement with the Russians
6. Donald Jr- bald face caught lying about meeting with the Russians
I could play this game all night
Pull your head out IB. You KNOW Trump is lying about his involvement with the Russians, Putin & his personal financial dealings with the Russians
Our President is a Traitor Originally Posted by themystic
Jeff Sessions - lol
Mueller - lol
Comey - lol
Loretta Lynch- lol
Eric Holder - lol
Waste of time and taxpayer dollars
- I B Hankering
- 01-13-2018, 11:36 PM
Give me a fucking break IB. Dear Kettle / Pot. Youre black toAnd Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator ditched his security team multiple times to fly on the "Lolita Express" with his pedophile buddy Jeffrey Epstein to Epstein's "Fantasy Island" while Harvey Weinstein covered Slick Willie's legal fees during the Paula Jones case, mistake, because Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator actually raped a woman, mistake, but dim-retards elected him anyway, mistake. Remember, even Monica signed onto the #MeToo" movement, mistake.
IB do you remember a guy named Richard Nixon? Did he exhibit the special social values and morals you Republicans hold so dear to you're hearts?
Or was it Denny Hastert Speaker of House 1999-2007. Described by a judge as a serial child molester
Is this where i espouse the morals and values of Roy Moore? You know the Alabama judge who likes under age girls
Jesus Fucking Christ!! What about old pussy grabber himself!
I know i gave you some red meat. " How date mistake say Jesus Fucking Christ ...blah blah blah Originally Posted by themystic
- Rey Lengua
- 01-13-2018, 11:40 PM
OMG, " Run Chicken Little the Sky is Falling"So, if'n a Dindu Nuffin RAPES AND ROBS in YOUR house and isn't caught for 2,3,4... years It's "ok" with you that he gets a " walk " on those crimes later ???? Talk to WTF and he can get YOU made " air tight " for no charge !
Could one of you Russians / Fake Americans let IB know that Obama is no longer President and Hillary doesn't hold any political office
Comrade Trump is POTUS
If a liberal told him he wouldn't believe it
Thanks Deplorable's
Also: you're tag line about 3.2 million fake voters in LA; uh not so much bro. Thats fake news IB Originally Posted by themystic
- Rey Lengua
- 01-13-2018, 11:45 PM
It's Odumbo's legacy that's going to fall, mistake, and the tagline is based on L.A.'s own figures, mistake.Who knew that LUBED WIDE ASS / seArgnet shitburner had " cousins ' that visited this forum ! ? Are they Caitlyn Jenner / Kardasian and Bradley / Chelsea Manning's TOO !???
Here's a "fact" for you, echo-chamber-complex. The DOJ did, in fact, deliver an "11-count indictment on Friday to a former DoD intelligence analyst-turned uranium transportation executive who stands accused of a bribery and money laundering scheme involving a Russian nuclear official connected to the Uranium One deal", echo-chamber-complex ... a deal that went down on Odumbo's watch, echo-chamber-complex.
Furthermore, your biased, agenda driven fact checker is as left-wing as MSNBC, echo-chamber-complex, and you posting what you did like your doing so can change facts shows that you're a thoroughly indoctrinated minion, echo-chamber-complex.
Keep your head up your shit-hole, echo-chamber-complex, you seem to like both the smell and the view, echo-chamber-complex.
The DOJ did what it did, mistake. Shoving your head up your shit-hole and denying that it happened won't change the facts, mistake. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
- Rey Lengua
- 01-13-2018, 11:48 PM
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
- Munchmasterman
- 01-13-2018, 11:54 PM
This is why I have corpy,
Mr. Tourette, on ignore.
But these indictments are going to damage Odumbo and hildebeest's legacies, mistake, because they -- not Trump -- colluded with the Russians for the Uranium One deal, mistake
There is no current evidence Clinton, Obama, or any member of CFIUS colluded with Russia.
Corpy is well known to confuse opinion for fact.
"The membership of CFIUS includes the State Department, meaning that the Secretary of State would have had a voice. The panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury (who chairs the committee), Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as theheads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
CFIUS did approve the proposal, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership of Uranium One and renamed the company Uranium One Holding.
Why would the United States allow the transfer of a uranium company?
Asothers, including aNew York Times’ investigation, have suggested, the United States was still seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal. But another factor may have been that, at the end of the day, the Russian deal wasn’t that big.
Russia’s purchase of the company "had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire," said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation, in an interview with PolitiFact last year. "That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it."
Why some of the critics’ charges during the campaign went too far
In June 2016, wefact-checkeda statement by then-candidate Donald Trump -- who was running against Clinton for president -- that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
We gave the statement a rating of Mostly False. While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there was simply no proof of any quid pro quo.
Trump’s allegation went too far in two ways.
One, Trump seemed to say that Clinton bears all of the responsibility for the deal’s approval. That is incorrect.
Clinton tolda New Hampshire TV stationin June 2015 that "I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did." And Jose Fernandez, who served as assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs under Clinton and represented the department on the panel, told theTimesthat Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."
But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.
Second, while we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007,[2007, well before Obama was elected. No possible way Clinton would know she would be Sec. State. "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.
We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.
The main exception is Ian Telfer, an investor who theNew York Timesfound donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.
So while Trump was within his right to question links between foundation donors and their ties to Uranium one, his specific charge was exaggerated.
Meanwhile, theWashington PostFact Checker subsequentlylooked ata similar Trump statement: "Remember that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of American uranium and, you know, she was paid a fortune. You know, they got a tremendous amount of money."
The Fact Checker came to the same conclusion about Trump’s misleading language, giving Trump’s assertion its worst rating of Four Pinocchios.
Why this story is coming up again
After Trump won the presidency, the Uranium One story received relatively little attention -- perhaps because Clinton is now a private citizen rather than serving as president. But that changed in the wake of areportpublished in theHillnewspaper on Oct. 17, 2017.
The article’s key finding was that by the time CFIUS was weighing the deal, the FBI had been investigating whether Russia was trying to gain influence in the U.S. nuclear industry. The report said that the FBI has already "gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States."
The implication of theHillarticle is that Clinton either did know, or should have known, about problems with the Russian bid for Uranium One before deciding whether to let it go forward. (Clinton, the FBI and the Justice Department did not provide a comment on this story.)
The article cited FBI, Energy Department and court documents showing that the FBI had gathered "substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009."
However, rather than bringing immediate charges in 2010, the article said, the Justice Department "continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions."
What remains unclear after the newest report?
The relevance of theHillreport for Clinton’s role would be whether she knew anything about this investigation at a time when she could have used her role in CFIUS to block the Russian deal. (It could also be relevant for the actions by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, whose department has a seat on CFIUS.)
For now at least, we aren’t aware of any evidence that Clinton knew anything about the FBI investigation. If anything, the Hill’s reporting suggests the opposite.
TheHillarticle quoted Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, saying that he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case.
" ‘I had no idea this case was being conducted,’ a surprised Hosko said in an interview," theHillarticle reported.
At least one key lawmaker -- then-Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time -- also said he did not know about the investigation.
If the assistant FBI director at the time knew nothing of the investigation, then Clinton -- someone in a different department and several rungs higher in the organizational chart -- might not have known about it.
Stewart A. Baker, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson, was skeptical that such information would have reached the Secretary of State -- "at least not until she was asked to weigh in on the transaction, and that would only happen if it were deeply controversial, which it was not. In my experience, the State Department was always one of the quickest agencies to urge approval of a deal, and they did that without checking with the Secretary."
The vast majority of cases that CFIUS reviews are handled by lower-ranking staffers and appointees, added Stephen Heifetz, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson who specializes in CFIUS law.
"Even though the heads of the CFIUS agencies comprise CFIUS as a matter of law," he said, "it is relatively rare to have a cabinet secretary directly involved in a CFIUS case."
That said, several experts said they were surprised that word had not filtered up from the FBI.
The FBI "is well represented as part of the Justice Department’s CFIUS team," Baker said. "It would be somewhat surprising to me if a company was under scrutiny as a buyer in CFIUS and simultaneously under investigation for criminal behavior by the FBI, but the criminal investigation was not known to the FBI’s representatives on CFIUS."
In addition, it’s Justice Department policy to consolidate all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act inquiries within department headquarters in Washington, said Michael Koehler, a professor at Southern Illinois University School of Law and an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This makes word of those cases more likely to reach top officials than other types of investigations.
And the fact that the Mikerin case included a confidential informant makes it "more likely than not that top Justice Department or FBI officials either knew of the inquiry or should have known of the inquiry," Koehler said.
Even if word had filtered up to CFIUS this way, it might not have been enough to scuttle the deal, Heifetz added.
"CFIUS often has cleared transactions when there is adverse information about foreign investors but no apparent risk to national security," he said.
Ultimately, we don’t know enough to be able to say whether the apparent lack of information about the FBI investigation among higher ups was due to internal reporting failures or the more mundane reality that ground-level FBI investigations take time to mature and solidify.
But for now, there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that Clinton’s actions -- ill-advised as they might have been -- were any more problematic than it seemed they were a year ago"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ton-and-urani/
Also,
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweets about Hillary Clinton and Russia
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...out-hillary-c/
The indictments were delivered in 2018, mistake, and it was L.A. County that self-reported their voter roles stood at 144% of its total eligible voters, mistake.
The 144 comes from a Judicial Watch claim they have spoken to L.A. County officials. Something corpy calls "self-reported".
They (Judicial Watch) haven't ever provided names of the officials they supposedly spoke with, positions of the officials they supposedly spoke with, or where (what databases) the numbers come from.
"California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is rebutting allegations by a Washington, D.C., group that 11 California counties, including San Diego County, have more registered voters than adults eligible to vote.
Padilla is calling the claim “baseless” even as the organization, Judicial Watch, threatens to sue the state if it does not adjust its voter records
Judicial Watch did not offer any data to back up its claim, and it declined to give the Los Angeles Times any details about its analysis, saying it may soon sue.
The claim, which Judicial Watch made in an Aug. 1 letter, has attracted curiosity and criticism and comes as Padilla has expressed a reluctance to hand over voter registration data to a White House panel tasked with investigating President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud in the 2016 election."
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html
By now you've had plenty of time, if you could or were going to do so, to research that "144%" and offer up any proof other than the Judicial Watch claim itself. A claim called "baseless" and refuted by the CA Sec. State.
Pretty humorous (or very ironic. Both of which are totally lost on you) that we're forcing you to keep it in your signature.
Mr. Tourette, on ignore.
But these indictments are going to damage Odumbo and hildebeest's legacies, mistake, because they -- not Trump -- colluded with the Russians for the Uranium One deal, mistake
There is no current evidence Clinton, Obama, or any member of CFIUS colluded with Russia.
Corpy is well known to confuse opinion for fact.
"The membership of CFIUS includes the State Department, meaning that the Secretary of State would have had a voice. The panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury (who chairs the committee), Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as theheads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
CFIUS did approve the proposal, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership of Uranium One and renamed the company Uranium One Holding.
Why would the United States allow the transfer of a uranium company?
Asothers, including aNew York Times’ investigation, have suggested, the United States was still seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal. But another factor may have been that, at the end of the day, the Russian deal wasn’t that big.
Russia’s purchase of the company "had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire," said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation, in an interview with PolitiFact last year. "That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it."
Why some of the critics’ charges during the campaign went too far
In June 2016, wefact-checkeda statement by then-candidate Donald Trump -- who was running against Clinton for president -- that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
We gave the statement a rating of Mostly False. While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there was simply no proof of any quid pro quo.
Trump’s allegation went too far in two ways.
One, Trump seemed to say that Clinton bears all of the responsibility for the deal’s approval. That is incorrect.
Clinton tolda New Hampshire TV stationin June 2015 that "I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did." And Jose Fernandez, who served as assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs under Clinton and represented the department on the panel, told theTimesthat Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."
But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.
Second, while we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007,[2007, well before Obama was elected. No possible way Clinton would know she would be Sec. State. "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.
We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.
The main exception is Ian Telfer, an investor who theNew York Timesfound donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.
So while Trump was within his right to question links between foundation donors and their ties to Uranium one, his specific charge was exaggerated.
Meanwhile, theWashington PostFact Checker subsequentlylooked ata similar Trump statement: "Remember that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of American uranium and, you know, she was paid a fortune. You know, they got a tremendous amount of money."
The Fact Checker came to the same conclusion about Trump’s misleading language, giving Trump’s assertion its worst rating of Four Pinocchios.
Why this story is coming up again
After Trump won the presidency, the Uranium One story received relatively little attention -- perhaps because Clinton is now a private citizen rather than serving as president. But that changed in the wake of areportpublished in theHillnewspaper on Oct. 17, 2017.
The article’s key finding was that by the time CFIUS was weighing the deal, the FBI had been investigating whether Russia was trying to gain influence in the U.S. nuclear industry. The report said that the FBI has already "gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States."
The implication of theHillarticle is that Clinton either did know, or should have known, about problems with the Russian bid for Uranium One before deciding whether to let it go forward. (Clinton, the FBI and the Justice Department did not provide a comment on this story.)
The article cited FBI, Energy Department and court documents showing that the FBI had gathered "substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009."
However, rather than bringing immediate charges in 2010, the article said, the Justice Department "continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions."
What remains unclear after the newest report?
The relevance of theHillreport for Clinton’s role would be whether she knew anything about this investigation at a time when she could have used her role in CFIUS to block the Russian deal. (It could also be relevant for the actions by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, whose department has a seat on CFIUS.)
For now at least, we aren’t aware of any evidence that Clinton knew anything about the FBI investigation. If anything, the Hill’s reporting suggests the opposite.
TheHillarticle quoted Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, saying that he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case.
" ‘I had no idea this case was being conducted,’ a surprised Hosko said in an interview," theHillarticle reported.
At least one key lawmaker -- then-Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time -- also said he did not know about the investigation.
If the assistant FBI director at the time knew nothing of the investigation, then Clinton -- someone in a different department and several rungs higher in the organizational chart -- might not have known about it.
Stewart A. Baker, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson, was skeptical that such information would have reached the Secretary of State -- "at least not until she was asked to weigh in on the transaction, and that would only happen if it were deeply controversial, which it was not. In my experience, the State Department was always one of the quickest agencies to urge approval of a deal, and they did that without checking with the Secretary."
The vast majority of cases that CFIUS reviews are handled by lower-ranking staffers and appointees, added Stephen Heifetz, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson who specializes in CFIUS law.
"Even though the heads of the CFIUS agencies comprise CFIUS as a matter of law," he said, "it is relatively rare to have a cabinet secretary directly involved in a CFIUS case."
That said, several experts said they were surprised that word had not filtered up from the FBI.
The FBI "is well represented as part of the Justice Department’s CFIUS team," Baker said. "It would be somewhat surprising to me if a company was under scrutiny as a buyer in CFIUS and simultaneously under investigation for criminal behavior by the FBI, but the criminal investigation was not known to the FBI’s representatives on CFIUS."
In addition, it’s Justice Department policy to consolidate all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act inquiries within department headquarters in Washington, said Michael Koehler, a professor at Southern Illinois University School of Law and an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This makes word of those cases more likely to reach top officials than other types of investigations.
And the fact that the Mikerin case included a confidential informant makes it "more likely than not that top Justice Department or FBI officials either knew of the inquiry or should have known of the inquiry," Koehler said.
Even if word had filtered up to CFIUS this way, it might not have been enough to scuttle the deal, Heifetz added.
"CFIUS often has cleared transactions when there is adverse information about foreign investors but no apparent risk to national security," he said.
Ultimately, we don’t know enough to be able to say whether the apparent lack of information about the FBI investigation among higher ups was due to internal reporting failures or the more mundane reality that ground-level FBI investigations take time to mature and solidify.
But for now, there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that Clinton’s actions -- ill-advised as they might have been -- were any more problematic than it seemed they were a year ago"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ton-and-urani/
Also,
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s tweets about Hillary Clinton and Russia
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...out-hillary-c/
The indictments were delivered in 2018, mistake, and it was L.A. County that self-reported their voter roles stood at 144% of its total eligible voters, mistake.
The 144 comes from a Judicial Watch claim they have spoken to L.A. County officials. Something corpy calls "self-reported".
They (Judicial Watch) haven't ever provided names of the officials they supposedly spoke with, positions of the officials they supposedly spoke with, or where (what databases) the numbers come from.
"California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is rebutting allegations by a Washington, D.C., group that 11 California counties, including San Diego County, have more registered voters than adults eligible to vote.
Padilla is calling the claim “baseless” even as the organization, Judicial Watch, threatens to sue the state if it does not adjust its voter records
Judicial Watch did not offer any data to back up its claim, and it declined to give the Los Angeles Times any details about its analysis, saying it may soon sue.
The claim, which Judicial Watch made in an Aug. 1 letter, has attracted curiosity and criticism and comes as Padilla has expressed a reluctance to hand over voter registration data to a White House panel tasked with investigating President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud in the 2016 election."
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html
You're a lying jackass, mistake. Originally Posted by I B HankeringKeep that "alternate fact" in your signature. It sums you up perfectly.
By now you've had plenty of time, if you could or were going to do so, to research that "144%" and offer up any proof other than the Judicial Watch claim itself. A claim called "baseless" and refuted by the CA Sec. State.
Pretty humorous (or very ironic. Both of which are totally lost on you) that we're forcing you to keep it in your signature.
- Rey Lengua
- 01-13-2018, 11:55 PM
Just for fun, Ill play along IB. Hear that IB? Thats me pulling my head out of my ass. The Feds indicted 11 people, there are 3 million unregistered voters, Hillary & Obama are selling uranium to Russians, etc, etc. Big stories for 2015-2016." i DID NOT INHALE.... "
Would you like to play along and pull your head out of you're ass as well, IB?
1. Trump is President, not Obama or Hillary
2. Mike Flynn has been indicted as a result of the Russian investigation
3. Paul Manafort has been indicted as a result of the Russian investigation
4. George Papadopoulos has already been convicted as a result of the Russian investigation
5. Mike Pence has point blank lied about his involvement with the Russians
6. Donald Jr- bald face caught lying about meeting with the Russians
I could play this game all night
Pull your head out IB. You KNOW Trump is lying about his involvement with the Russians, Putin & his personal financial dealings with the Russians
Our President is a Traitor Originally Posted by themystic
"
I did not have sex WITH THAT WOMAN.........MIZ LEWISKY........" " YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR / HEATH CARE PLAN !!!! "
TALK TO Mr. DOTY 5 TIMES !!!! ABOUT your FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIS GLORYHOLE BIDNESS IN your AREA ! AS TALENTED AS YOU ARE SUCKING LYIN LIBERAL COCKS AND ASS, HE'S SURE TO GIVE YOU A DISCOUNT ON THE " FRANCHISE FEES " AND PERSONALLY COME HELP YOU WITH THE STARTUP !
- I B Hankering
- 01-14-2018, 12:11 AM
Blah, blah, fucking blah Originally Posted by MunchmastermanFollow the money, masterdickmuncher, the Steele dossier is proof that Team hildebeest colluded with the Russians, masterdickmuncher.
You missed the part about how Odumbo, hildebeest, etc, knew about but ignored the illegal activities of Russian agents, i.e., bribery, kickbacks, etc., and pushed through with the uranium sale anyway, masterdickmuncher.
Judicial Watch identified that it was county officials in the L.A. county voter registrars office who self-reported, masterdickmuncher, but since you're too drunk to count to ten, you're probably too drunk to realize that ten, plus or minus, people in the L.A. County registrars office authorized to answer FOIA requests is a number too large for you to contend with, masterdickmuncher.
dim-retards lie, masterdickmuncher, just as you lied in your post, masterdickmuncher. That's what you dim-retards do, masterdickmuncher.
- Munchmasterman
- 01-14-2018, 12:11 AM
WHEN HAS TRUMP BEEN ACCUSED OF RAPE OR ATTEMPTED RAPE? ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE A CHILD, HIS WIFE AND A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE
The allegations arrived during a watershed moment in the country, as victims speak out in droves against powerful and dangerous offenders. But one man apparently slipped through the cracks just before America began this reckoning. Despite facing a flurry of allegations, Donald Trump became president.
Trump has been accused of rape and attempted rape a total of three times, once involving an alleged victim who was a year younger than Moore's accuser.
In 1994, Trump went to a party with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who was a notorious registered sex offender, and raped a 13-year-old girl that night in what was a "savage sexual attack," according to a lawsuit filed in June 2016 by "Jane Doe." The account was corroborated by a witness in the suit, who claimed to have watched as the child performed various sexual acts on Trump and Epstein even after the two were advised she was a minor.
"Immediately following this rape Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed," Jane Doe wrote in the lawsuit, filed in New York.
A former Trump business associate, Jill Harth, claimed in a 1997 lawsuit the New York real estate mogul “attempted rape” and groped her without her consent on various occasions. In the suit, Harth described a violent encounter at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, in which Trump allegedly threw her against the wall of one of his children’s bedrooms before lifting up her dress.
"It was a shocking thing to have him do this, because he knew I was with George [her partner], he knew they were in the next room," she recalled in an October 2016 interview with The Guardian. "How could he be doing this when I'm there for business?"
In the pre-election interview, Harth maintained her allegations against Trump despite having withdrawn her lawsuit against him after he settled a separate suit her partner filed over a business dispute.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...y-moore-713531
And you voted for him anyway, you tranny sucking bitch.
The allegations arrived during a watershed moment in the country, as victims speak out in droves against powerful and dangerous offenders. But one man apparently slipped through the cracks just before America began this reckoning. Despite facing a flurry of allegations, Donald Trump became president.
Trump has been accused of rape and attempted rape a total of three times, once involving an alleged victim who was a year younger than Moore's accuser.
In 1994, Trump went to a party with Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who was a notorious registered sex offender, and raped a 13-year-old girl that night in what was a "savage sexual attack," according to a lawsuit filed in June 2016 by "Jane Doe." The account was corroborated by a witness in the suit, who claimed to have watched as the child performed various sexual acts on Trump and Epstein even after the two were advised she was a minor.
"Immediately following this rape Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed," Jane Doe wrote in the lawsuit, filed in New York.
A former Trump business associate, Jill Harth, claimed in a 1997 lawsuit the New York real estate mogul “attempted rape” and groped her without her consent on various occasions. In the suit, Harth described a violent encounter at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, in which Trump allegedly threw her against the wall of one of his children’s bedrooms before lifting up her dress.
"It was a shocking thing to have him do this, because he knew I was with George [her partner], he knew they were in the next room," she recalled in an October 2016 interview with The Guardian. "How could he be doing this when I'm there for business?"
In the pre-election interview, Harth maintained her allegations against Trump despite having withdrawn her lawsuit against him after he settled a separate suit her partner filed over a business dispute.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...y-moore-713531
And you voted for him anyway, you tranny sucking bitch.
And Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator ditched his security team multiple times to fly on the "Lolita Express" with his pedophile buddy Jeffrey Epstein to Epstein's "Fantasy Island" while Harvey Weinstein covered Slick Willie's legal fees during the Paula Jones case, mistake, because Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator was actually raped a woman, mistake, but dim-retards elected him anyway, mistake. Remember even Monica signed onto the #MeToo" movement, mistake. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
- I B Hankering
- 01-14-2018, 12:24 AM
Blah, blah and more blah, blah.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Rape charges by "anonymous" and "unnamed sources" and jilted gold diggers is all you lib-retarded cocksuckers have, masterdickmuncher. Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator is on 26 flight manifests for Epstein's plane, masterdickmuncher, and Harvey Weinstein paid part of Slick Willie's settlement with Paula Jones, masterdickmuncher ... just before Slick Willie was disbarred for perjury, masterdickmuncher; yet, your lame, drunken-ass voted for his number one enabler anyway, masterdickmuncher.
- Munchmasterman
- 01-14-2018, 12:57 AM
Follow the money, masterdickmuncher, the Steele dossier is proof that Team hildebeest colluded with the Russians, masterdickmuncher.Again no links. If "Judicial Watch did not offer any data to back up its claim, and it declined to give the Los Angeles Times any details about its analysis, saying it may soon sue." didn't provide info to the state of CA and the CA Sec. State says the number is wrong, what data or details do you have they don't?
You missed the part about how Odumbo, hildebeest, etc, knew about but ignored the illegal activities of Russian agents, i.e., bribery, kickbacks, etc., and pushed through with the uranium sale anyway, masterdickmuncher.
Judicial Watch identified that it was county officials (Stop pretending your stupidity is the reason you're dense.
What FOIA tranny sucker? They would have mentioned filing one if they did. Stop making shit up.
"In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).
In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age."
The voting survey is available online. They didn't get that from county officials and it doesn't show the kind of info they claim.
Who did they contact "verbally"?
Looks like you're too stupid to notice the part about "Judicial Watch did not offer any data to back up its claim, and it declined to give the Los Angeles Times any details about its analysis, saying it may soon sue."
in the L.A. county voter registrars office who self-reported, masterdickmuncher, but since you're too drunk to count to ten, you probably too drunk the realize that ten, plus or minus, people in the L.A. County registrars office allowed to answer FOIA requests is a number too large for you to contend with, masterdickmuncher.
dim-retards lie, masterdickmuncher, just as you're lied in your post, masterdickmuncher. That's what you dim-retards do, masterdickmuncher.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
We all know the answer to that.
You don't have shit.
- Munchmasterman
- 01-14-2018, 12:59 AM
You not following the link shows you're stupid. Plus you just lied about Clinton being disbarred.
Rape charges by "anonymous" and "unnamed sources" and jilted gold diggers is all you lib-retarded cocksuckers have, masterdickmuncher. Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator is on 26 flight manifests for Epstein's plane, masterdickmuncher, and Harvey Weinstein paid part of Slick Willie's settlement with Paula Jones, masterdickmuncher ... just before Slick Willie was disbarred for perjury, masterdickmuncher; yet, your lame, drunken-ass voted for his number one enabler anyway, masterdickmuncher.
https://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-...insky-scandal/
Got your punk-ass bitch self kicked by a "drunk" again.
- I B Hankering
- 01-14-2018, 01:06 AM
You not following the link shows you're stupid.It was spelled out for your stupid ass, masterdickmuncher, but you're too stupid drunk to understand, masterdickmuncher. And your drunken ass can't crawl from beneath the urinals in the men's room let alone kick anyone's ass, masterdickmuncher.
Got your punk-ass kicked by a "drunk" again. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
You not following the link shows you're stupid. Plus you just lied about Clinton being disbarred.Your Snopes article says Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator was given forty days to dispute his disbarment, masterdickmuncher. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator didn't dispute his disbarment, masterdickmuncher.
https://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-...insky-scandal/
Got your punk-ass bitch self kicked by a "drunk" again. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
MOSTLY TRUE