You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:PaSnow wrote:I dunno dude, I'm just shocked he's this bad. I mean George W was bad, but I think it isn't even close.
We'll see. I'll give you this, if it is only Stormy Daniels and petty campaign stuff, I'll be pissed. I can't see this not being big tho.
Ummmmm, if it was big shit wouldn’t we know by now?? They are trying to break someone to spill the beans because they don’t know for sure.
I can’t believe the Trump supporters are still saying this....
Have you ever been apart of an investigation where you knew integral facts about a case BEFORE a judge or jury?
The irony here is baffling
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:PaSnow wrote:I dunno dude, I'm just shocked he's this bad. I mean George W was bad, but I think it isn't even close.
We'll see. I'll give you this, if it is only Stormy Daniels and petty campaign stuff, I'll be pissed. I can't see this not being big tho.
Ummmmm, if it was big shit wouldn’t we know by now?? They are trying to break someone to spill the beans because they don’t know for sure.
I can’t believe the Trump supporters are still saying this....
Have you ever been apart of an investigation where you knew integral facts about a case BEFORE a judge or jury?
I don’t see the need why Hannity’s name was revealed. There needs to be some privacy and protections. I guess not anymore. There appears to no longer be attorney client privilege. Hannity is not under investigation. Now he is drug into this shit show. I don’t like these tactics of bullying etc. Maybe I am over reacting. I would say the same damn thing if this was about Hillary Clinton’s attorney and they represented Rachel Maddow.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:PaSnow wrote:I dunno dude, I'm just shocked he's this bad. I mean George W was bad, but I think it isn't even close.
We'll see. I'll give you this, if it is only Stormy Daniels and petty campaign stuff, I'll be pissed. I can't see this not being big tho.
Ummmmm, if it was big shit wouldn’t we know by now?? They are trying to break someone to spill the beans because they don’t know for sure.
I can’t believe the Trump supporters are still saying this....
Have you ever been apart of an investigation where you knew integral facts about a case BEFORE a judge or jury?
Time to out the judge I guess!
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Holy fuck, you cannot make this up. The judge that outs Sean Hannity marries George Soros!!!
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Ummmmm, if it was big shit wouldn’t we know by now?? They are trying to break someone to spill the beans because they don’t know for sure.
I can’t believe the Trump supporters are still saying this....
Have you ever been apart of an investigation where you knew integral facts about a case BEFORE a judge or jury?
The irony here is baffling
Touche. Well played Flagg.
Re: US Politics Thread
I don’t see the need why Hannity’s name was revealed. There needs to be some privacy and protections. I guess not anymore. There appears to no longer be attorney client privilege. Hannity is not under investigation. Now he is drug into this shit show. I don’t like these tactics of bullying etc. Maybe I am over reacting. I would say the same damn thing if this was about Hillary Clinton’s attorney and they represented Rachel Maddow.
I'm unsure too, but it could be wrapped up within the legal mumbo jumbo of it all. Is Cohen himself now being investigated for crimes? Did he knowingly within emails state that the $130K needed to be kept off the books? And then, what is Hannitys relationship to the matter? Did he get the Stormy Daniels story first? Did she come to him when Trump was still in the primaries phase, and he held onto it. Or was there some this for that involvement of Hannity & he RNC contacts and Trump. I would think it would all be within the documents of the filings though, unless it was the intent of the search warrant. In the end, like alot of this, it will come out. And if nothing comes of him & his relation to this matter, I'll also admit it was a bust.
As a news personality though, he should be toast. Dan Rather & Brian Williams took alot of heat and essentially forced to resign. This is up there with that, as typically news incites full disclosure when the station is affiliated with the story (ABC reports on ESPN ratings or Star Wars sales, NBC reports on Comcast merger etc...). There was a case around 2000 which thrust it into the common disclosure of it, sometime around Enron but I can't remember the exact case & business ownership. I think a station did a report on a business & then it turned out the business was a subsidiary of the stations ownership.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Disappointed in the Comey interview. Watched it last night and didn’t find anything new or informative. I like Comey and think he did a good job all things considered, save the huge mistake he made announcing the Anthony Weiner bullshit. That will be his legacy.
I’m hoping his book is better. I still don’t see any obstruction from his version of the Trump talk. I find it weird ABC didn’t air the portion of the interview where he finds fault with Obama publicly stating Clinton did no wrong before the investigation is over.
I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd. But I’m truly baffled at how people can say “I hope you find a way to letting this go” is obstruction of justice, but the AG telling him to call it a “matter” instead of an investigation (when comey’s Book makes it clear it was a criminal investigation - albeit one that didn’t find fault) and Obama gives a press conference stating “nothing illegal occurred” is not obstruction of justice.
I did appreciate that at the end of the interview, Comey explains that not everything should be tried to be made into a crime and distinguishing between moral ineptitude and fragrant violation of the law. His point that Americans need to show up to the ballot and have their voice heard is well received.
Comey again confirmed that Trump was never under investigation for collusion with Russia and nothing from Mueller has been related to collusion. But here we sit, with half the country convinced Trump blows Putin on the regular, and half convinced a deep state conspiracy exists to undermine Trump at every turn. Neither have facts on their side, but they’ll get very loud and abusive if you confront them with that.
One thing is for certain though, Russia was far more successful in undermining the office of the President than they ever dreamed of.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:I don’t see the need why Hannity’s name was revealed. There needs to be some privacy and protections. I guess not anymore. There appears to no longer be attorney client privilege. Hannity is not under investigation. Now he is drug into this shit show. I don’t like these tactics of bullying etc. Maybe I am over reacting. I would say the same damn thing if this was about Hillary Clinton’s attorney and they represented Rachel Maddow.
I'm unsure too, but it could be wrapped up within the legal mumbo jumbo of it all. Is Cohen himself now being investigated for crimes? Did he knowingly within emails state that the $130K needed to be kept off the books? And then, what is Hannitys relationship to the matter? Did he get the Stormy Daniels story first? Did she come to him when Trump was still in the primaries phase, and he held onto it. Or was there some this for that involvement of Hannity & he RNC contacts and Trump. I would think it would all be within the documents of the filings though, unless it was the intent of the search warrant. In the end, like alot of this, it will come out. And if nothing comes of him & his relation to this matter, I'll also admit it was a bust.
As a news personality though, he should be toast. Dan Rather & Brian Williams took alot of heat and essentially forced to resign. This is up there with that, as typically news incites full disclosure when the station is affiliated with the story (ABC reports on ESPN ratings or Star Wars sales, NBC reports on Comcast merger etc...). There was a case around 2000 which thrust it into the common disclosure of it, sometime around Enron but I can't remember the exact case & business ownership. I think a station did a report on a business & then it turned out the business was a subsidiary of the stations ownership.
I know as little as you do, but it appears to me this is related to the other client that isn’t Hannity or Trump. I think there’s possibly some room for a SCOTUS review of what is protected and what isn’t.
I’m not committed to this position, but if all of this is over a consensual payment to keep a porn star from bragging about fucking Trump, I feel this is as big an overstep as Comey announcing the Weiner laptop days before the election.
Where’s moveon.org now?
Re: US Politics Thread
I know as little as you do, but it appears to me this is related to the other client that isn’t Hannity or Trump. I think there’s possibly some room for a SCOTUS review of what is protected and what isn’t.
Wasn't the 3rd client Elliott Broidy, the GOP fundraiser guy? Are you saying he's potentially tied up in the crimes? If so it's all just a big messy web they'd all be tied into.
Also, keep in mind, I think the Cohen search warrant was executed by local NYC enforcement, seperate from the Mueller probe. I think it bordered on campaign & election laws ($$, campaign finance, laundering etc).
