Reply With Quote
bad week for Chrisbot as well.
No he's just tired off your relentless questions without reciprocation, and is basically telling you to off because you have no interest in a rational conversation, only pointing fingers. Saavy?
Nope. Just dropping some info to show people the indictments of Manafort/Gates have nothing to do with Trump and are actually connected to the Clintons when you dig into them.
And this
For what reason, TSA?
Why is dropping that info so important to you?
no one here could've said it better.
pav!
Apart from Sessions and Kusher, Manafort/Gates were extremely close to, maybe a bridge, between Trash and Pootin.
I'll LMFAO when M/G implicate Trash in all kinds of BEFORE he was Pres, meaning he is liable to be grand juried, indicted and tried.
I make fun of anything you write, yes.
I'll take that as a no, you don't dispute anything I wrote.
SO YOU TOTALLY BUY MY INNUENDO!
"dropping info"Nope. Just dropping some info to show people the indictments of Manafort/Gates have nothing to do with Trump and are actually connected to the Clintons when you dig into them.
And this
Just like twoofers dwopping twoof bombs.
Man, I really want a thousand dollars from you. That would be so sweet. Ah well.
Think of all the pizza I could buy.
People on this board we cheering as if the indictments somehow implicated Trump. I don't want people to look stupid cheering for something they don't fully understand.
Not at all. That is easy. Pretty much all bull innuendo. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Better?
Without his schitck and the people who go along with it, like Sputs and TSA, then the political form would be 90% insults, RG's continued downward spiral and Boot's bat crazy posts.
Is anything below false?
Manafort/Gates indicted for work in Ukraine
Manafort/Gates lobbied for Yanukovych in Ukraine.
The Podesta Group was working with Manafort on this as well. Tony shut down the Podesta Group on the day Manafort was charged.
Yanukovych hired Skadden Arps to write a report on the prosecution of Tymoshenko in 2012
Van der Zwaan involved in producing report
Greg Craig and Clifford Sloan were partners at Skadden Arps
Greg Craig was the White House counsel to Barack Obama. He was also the assistant to President Clinton and special counsel in the White House.
Clifford Sloan was Associate White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton. At the same time as Greg Craig.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009-2013.
The Clintons were being paid millions by one of Yanukovych's billionaire backers at the time, Victor Pinchuk.
From 2009-2013 the Clinton Foundation received 8.6 million dollars from Victor Pinchuk. He also pledged 29 million dollars over 5 years to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Pinchuk lobbied Clinton on behalf of Yanukovych
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05783797.pdf
Clinton denied ever meeting Pinchuk. In her last year as SOS Clinton invited Pinchuk to dinner at her home.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/em...rticle/2600040
Why would you bring up the Clintons then?
All you had to say was the indictments didn't implicate Trump and that would be it.
Looks like you're lying again tbh.
Please bold the parts that are innuendo, you can even make them large font like you love doing.
Manafort/Gates indicted for work in Ukraine
Manafort/Gates lobbied for Yanukovych in Ukraine.
The Podesta Group was working with Manafort on this as well. Tony shut down the Podesta Group on the day Manafort was charged.
Yanukovych hired Skadden Arps to write a report on the prosecution of Tymoshenko in 2012
Van der Zwaan involved in producing report
Greg Craig and Clifford Sloan were partners at Skadden Arps
Greg Craig was the White House counsel to Barack Obama. He was also the assistant to President Clinton and special counsel in the White House.
Clifford Sloan was Associate White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton. At the same time as Greg Craig.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009-2013.
The Clintons were being paid millions by one of Yanukovych's billionaire backers at the time, Victor Pinchuk.
From 2009-2013 the Clinton Foundation received 8.6 million dollars from Victor Pinchuk. He also pledged 29 million dollars over 5 years to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Pinchuk lobbied Clinton on behalf of Yanukovych
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05783797.pdf
Clinton denied ever meeting Pinchuk. In her last year as SOS Clinton invited Pinchuk to dinner at her home.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/em...rticle/2600040
So the post where you flat out say Mueller is trying to get Gates and Manafort to serve up the Clintons is something to not be considered?
RandomGuy Has more common sense than most. Just a bit too enthusiastic about things that aren't likely to happen.
But unlike boots, he makes good points often with stats to back things up.
Boots thinks posting daily kos and unfunny Borowitz articles are cute.
If I just said they don't implicate Trump someone, most likely you, would have said prove it.
So far, so grifty. If you guessed that Gates was negotiating to avoid jail time and finally tapped out when Mueller dropped those indictments yesterday, you’re probably right. But let’s step back and take a guess at what’s going on behind the scenes here.
On February 1, Gates’s lawyers moved to withdraw from the case, citing irreconcilable differences. They entered their motion about 10 minutes after Gates had his “Queen for a Day” with the FBI. That’s the proffer interview, where a witness lays all his cards on the table and says to the prosecutor, “What will you give me for this?”
Now in normal cir stances, a witness can’t be prosecuted for what he says during the proffer. But he can lose that immunity if he lies. WHICH HE DID. Meaning that whatever he said during that interview might be used to prosecute him.
And in normal cir stances, lawyers aren’t allowed to pull out in the middle of a case. But if, say, you know your client lied to the FBI, you have an ethical obligation to withdraw. And you have to balance that obligation with attorney-client privilege. Thus, the “noisy withdrawal,” where the attorney is allowed to breach the privilege and tell the judge in chambers that she needs to be excused from the case because her client has been less than wholly truthful.
And look at this thread from your favorite lawyer Renato Mariotti from February 1!
Boy, that guy is SMART! All the Illinois Wonkers should vote for him to be the next AG!
But back to Gates. We don’t know for sure what happened here, but if your eyes glazed over during the TL;DR, our working theory is this:
- Gates lied to the FBI on February 1 during plea negotiations.
- His lawyers a brick and immediately moved to withdraw.
- Because of the lie, Gates lost immunity from prosecution for whatever he said during plea negotiations.
- Gates is a ING FOOL.
Read more at https://wonkette.com/630314/rick-gat...crUfPVZR2dF.99
------------------------------------------------------
We haven’t worked out yet why that meeting with Rohrabacher was incriminating enough to lie about, but it sure is an interesting question, huh?
Okay, batten down the hatches Wonkers. Emperor Dementia ’bout to lose his on Twitter when he realizes that Gates is singing like a canary. ’s gonna get weird.
Read more at https://wonkette.com/630314/rick-gat...crUfPVZR2dF.99
No.
You're lying.
You said Mueller was trying to get Gates and Manafort to serve up the Clintons.
What does any of this have to do with implicating Trump?So far, so grifty. If you guessed that Gates was negotiating to avoid jail time and finally tapped out when Mueller dropped those indictments yesterday, you’re probably right. But let’s step back and take a guess at what’s going on behind the scenes here.
On February 1, Gates’s lawyers moved to withdraw from the case, citing irreconcilable differences. They entered their motion about 10 minutes after Gates had his “Queen for a Day” with the FBI. That’s the proffer interview, where a witness lays all his cards on the table and says to the prosecutor, “What will you give me for this?”
Now in normal cir stances, a witness can’t be prosecuted for what he says during the proffer. But he can lose that immunity if he lies. WHICH HE DID. Meaning that whatever he said during that interview might be used to prosecute him.
And in normal cir stances, lawyers aren’t allowed to pull out in the middle of a case. But if, say, you know your client lied to the FBI, you have an ethical obligation to withdraw. And you have to balance that obligation with attorney-client privilege. Thus, the “noisy withdrawal,” where the attorney is allowed to breach the privilege and tell the judge in chambers that she needs to be excused from the case because her client has been less than wholly truthful.
And look at this thread from your favorite lawyer Renato Mariotti from February 1!
Boy, that guy is SMART! All the Illinois Wonkers should vote for him to be the next AG!
But back to Gates. We don’t know for sure what happened here, but if your eyes glazed over during the TL;DR, our working theory is this:
- Gates lied to the FBI on February 1 during plea negotiations.
- His lawyers a brick and immediately moved to withdraw.
- Because of the lie, Gates lost immunity from prosecution for whatever he said during plea negotiations.
- Gates is a ING FOOL.
Read more at https://wonkette.com/630314/rick-gat...crUfPVZR2dF.99
------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, including Rohrabacher's name in the indictment seems noteworthy to me, but I could be wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
