HA, Comey is a cooked goose Runk. They should have notified The Gateway Pundit and had the SWAT team grab him with rifles pointed at his head. Out of his playbook, except Stone was of course innocent.
Do you think Comey handles that pressure like Roger or does he flinch under the heat, anct out and boom boom boom?
Well, for the reasons I gave you, including the facts set forth in the Trump FBI Report that you never read, I don't see any cooked goose so far. Maybe you and Hallirans have some more facts that we don't know about. I suppose we'll find out soon.
Stone was convicted by a jury of several felonies. I'm not aware of anything that would cause anyone to believe he was wrongly convicted, and neither are you. He even tried to kill Bianca, for Christ's sakes.
Stone himself said it recently. was all a bunch of crap.
Still, even if I tossed you a bone and gave you this one, the way the two parties treat others is in stark contrast and the Stone and Comey cases very clearly point this out. One side believes in Christ, the other believes in Lucifer. Hard to debate this simple difference.
President Trump’s first-ever plan to end the war in Gaza, which he unveiled to allies earlier this week with much fanfare, has leaked, revealing a demand to release all the Israeli hostages i???
Well, for the reasons I gave you, including the facts set forth in the Trump FBI Report that you never read, I don't see any cooked goose so far. Maybe you and Hallirans have some more facts that we don't know about. I suppose we'll find out soon.
Stone was convicted by a jury of several felonies. I'm not aware of anything that would cause anyone to believe he was wrongly convicted, and neither are you. He even tried to kill Bianca, for Christ's sakes.
Stone himself said it recently. was all a bunch of crap.
Still, even if I tossed you a bone and gave you this one, the way the two parties treat others is in stark contrast and the Stone and Comey cases very clearly point this out. One side believes in Christ, the other believes in Lucifer. Hard to debate this simple difference.
Wait, you believe in Christ, but don't believe in Lucifer. Now you are censoring parts of the Bible by choosing which parts you like, too? Is that what's in the Trump version? Good lord. Is there no end to your selective beliefs?
Eh, I doubt that, Sputnik. I agree that the large majority of people charged in federal court get convicted or plead guilty. But this Comey case is looking pretty flimsy. Did you read the Trump FBI Report that I linked earlier? Maybe that's a dumb question of mine. But what the Report shows is that Trump's FBI did a thorough investigation of these events back in 2018 and they didn't find any documents that would corroborate an allegation that Comey lied about "'authoriz[ing] someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports [regarding Clinton emails]." In fact, all the document and testimonial evidence shows McCabe did the authorizing and told Comey about it after the fact. So, I don't see this case going anywhere. You know what I mean?
Here's that Report by Trump's FBI again, so you can read it and get up to speed. See page 12 ("McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ"). See Page 23 ("We found it highly unlikely that Comey, in a discussion with McCabe that same day, would have been accepting of a disclosure authorized by McCabe that looked exactly like the type of leak that he was condemning to his staff."). See Page 33 ("McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization").
Rafael "Ted" Cruz's father was involved in the murder of President Kennedy.
So what you are saying is that the entire case will hinge on the word of Rafael Ted Cruz that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of the eye witness?
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Rafael known in Trump circles as Lying Ted?
It's an interesting point about Cruz's question. Part of Cruz's question recited the premise "Mr. McCabe,who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it."
As far as I can tell, McCabe never stated, publicly or privately, that Comey authorized the disclosure to the Wall Street Journal or that Comey was even aware of the disclosure before it happened. Trump's FBI Report found that McCabe told Comey about the disclosure after McCabe authorized it. See Page 33 ("McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization") and page 12 ("McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ").
Cruz appears to be mis-stating facts and evidence in his question. So, is it even possible to lie in response about a question that recites falsehoods? I would guess that's legally impossible, no matter what answer is given.
Let's all go back in history a bit. Jimmy Carter's brother introduced Billy Beer in 1977. It was widely criticised for being a low class grift to make money from the Presidency. His brother.
Today we have the President himself selling dozens of self branded grift products which are widely seen as low quality or of limited value, one even with patent infringements. The most egregious of these is crypto currency which cannot be tracked so it is ripe for bribes. He has openly granted favors to those who bought crypto and donated funds.
But maga thinks this is acceptable for Trump and no other politician before him. It is a Cult with no moral compass.
So what you are saying is that the entire case will hinge on the word of Rafael Ted Cruz that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of the eye witness?
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Rafael known in Trump circles as Lying Ted?
It's an interesting point about Cruz's question. Part of Cruz's question recited the premise "Mr. McCabe,who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it."
As far as I can tell, McCabe never stated, publicly or privately, that Comey authorized the disclosure to the Wall Street Journal or that Comey was even aware of the disclosure before it happened. Trump's FBI Report found that McCabe told Comey about the disclosure after McCabe authorized it. See Page 33 ("McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization") and page 12 ("McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ").
Cruz appears to be mis-stating facts and evidence in his question. So, is it even possible to lie in response about a question that recites falsehoods? I would guess that's legally impossible, no matter what answer is given.
FBI investigators claim former deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted to misleading them about his involvement in a media leak and subsequently apologized for the lie, according to newly released transcripts of McCabe's inter...
So what you are saying is that the entire case will hinge on the word of Rafael Ted Cruz that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of the eye witness?
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Rafael known in Trump circles as Lying Ted?
It's an interesting point about Cruz's question. Part of Cruz's question recited the premise "Mr. McCabe,who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it."
As far as I can tell, McCabe never stated, publicly or privately, that Comey authorized the disclosure to the Wall Street Journal or that Comey was even aware of the disclosure before it happened. Trump's FBI Report found that McCabe told Comey about the disclosure after McCabe authorized it. See Page 33 ("McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization") and page 12 ("McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ").
Cruz appears to be mis-stating facts and evidence in his question. So, is it even possible to lie in response about a question that recites falsehoods? I would guess that's legally impossible, no matter what answer is given.
ER, thank you. This is far too long, factual, logical, and nuanced for maga. If it isn't "everything Trump says is truth even when he contradicts himself", they are not listening. Come to think of it, they are not even listening to Trump. They just repeat whatever he says without thought or question.
Stone himself said it recently. was all a bunch of crap.
Still, even if I tossed you a bone and gave you this one, the way the two parties treat others is in stark contrast and the Stone and Comey cases very clearly point this out. One side believes in Christ, the other believes in Lucifer. Hard to debate this simple difference.
Wait, you believe in Christ, but don't believe in Lucifer. Now you are censoring parts of the Bible by choosing which parts you like, too? Is that what's in the Trump version? Good lord. Is there no end to your selective beliefs?
Wait, you believe in Christ, but don't believe in Lucifer. Now you are censoring parts of the Bible by choosing which parts you like, too? Is that what's in the Trump version? Good lord. Is there no end to your selective beliefs?
It's an interesting point about Cruz's question. Part of Cruz's question recited the premise "Mr. McCabe,who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it."
As far as I can tell, McCabe never stated, publicly or privately, that Comey authorized the disclosure to the Wall Street Journal or that Comey was even aware of the disclosure before it happened. Trump's FBI Report found that McCabe told Comey about the disclosure after McCabe authorized it. See Page 33 ("McCabe, without consulting Comey, authorized disclosure of the PADAG call on background to one news organization") and page 12 ("McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ").
Cruz appears to be mis-stating facts and evidence in his question. So, is it even possible to lie in response about a question that recites falsehoods? I would guess that's legally impossible, no matter what answer is given.
Thanks for the article exonerating Comey. The article says McCabe admitted that he himself authorized the leak after initially stating he did not. Do you even read the things you post?
Like any usual Trump company: "Drinks Americas was subject to several lawsuits surrounding Trump Vodka. Bruni Glass sued over unpaid bills and, consequently, melted 500,000 Trump Vodka mini-bottles ready for shipment.[7] Donald Trump also sued Drinks Americas for unpaid royalties, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.[9]"
Oklahoma superintendent who put Trump Bibles in classrooms resigns - the Guardian
Note. He didn't resign because he's a complete failure and Oklahoma schools are ranked 49th in the country. No, he went to work for some conservative academic think tank (as oxymoronic as that is) because he thinks he should spread his failures to a wider audience.
Stone was found knowingly making false statements, falsely identifying an involved party, and then coercing that party to corroborate his false statements. All evidenced by texts and emails sent directly by Stone himself. If your standard is the law, these amount to obstruction and witness tampering.
I know facts tend to be left leaning, so it’s understandable why you so zealously reject them.
Thanks for the article exonerating Comey. The article says McCabe admitted that he himself authorized the leak after initially stating he did not. Do you even read the things you post?
It appears that Trump is just happy with the indictments alone. Not really concerning himself if they ever result in a conviction.
So why would he do so?
It’s never fun to try to figure out Trumps motives. But here are some distinct possibilities.
1. He is just a petty sociopath, narcissist that holds lifelong grudges
2. The indictment is sufficient to build the narrative that Comey is corrupt and therefore all Trumps crimes were somehow just corrupt prosecution.
3. Trump wants to cause financial pain to all on his retribution list.
4. Trump wants any future whistleblower to his corruption to keep their whistle in their pocket.
