Tiberius Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I thought there already was proof. You're such a schmuck. That pic is of you and DR Just now, Deranged Rhino said: That's being kind. Oh, you two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Lanny Davis, saying Lanny Davis things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Lanny Davis, saying Lanny Davis things. Clintons lawyer!! Too funny!!! Love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 35 minutes ago, THEHARDTRUTH said: Dont deflect. This isnt a Trump appearance on Hannity. Tell me the legal basis for why these flimsy plea deals wont reach the sentencing phase. Case cites and statutes. Thats what I need. That the basis of our legal system. Come on counselor. Its your time to shine. I'm not deflecting. Isn't it odd that Papa has been sitting on his guilty plea for almost a year? The two most obvious moves ahead of sentencing would be a) to recant the guilty pleas as more information comes to light or b) for the judges to reject the guilty plea as more information comes to light. It all rides on what come out next from Horowitz or Huber. If Greggy is correct, those three guilty pleas are toast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: McCabe - fired Bruce Ohr - 2x demoted/about to be fired Baker - fired/forced out Kortan - fired Rybicki -fired Plus a half dozen more at State. LOL. We're not dealing with high caliber people on either side. It's like a white collar Washington DC version of bloods vs. crips. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Here's the deal. I have no dog in this fight, so I will say this........... If you wanna go after Trump's employees....... FINE. If you wanna go after Trump for his infidelities and make them impeachable offenses............... FINE. My question would be and has always been............... Where is the equal justice under the law? I don't give a FF what side of the political isle you are on............... We should all want equal justice and not just protect the offenders on the left. And there are OBVIOUS crimes on the left too and you if you deny that, you are a delusional moron that has ZERO interest in an equal justice system. It's just bring down Trump at any cost and don't pay attention to the crimes on the left's side. Bring all the criminals down................ ON ALL SIDES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Doc Brown said: LOL. We're not dealing with high caliber people on either side. It's like a white collar Washington DC version of bloods vs. crips. You're not wrong. That's why I referred to this initially as a shadow war between the establishment and a new group/power structure. More specifically, the conflict revolves around the money/people behind the establishment (deep state/shadow gov't/cabal) and their lackeys who are being shown the door on the global influence stage by a new sheriff (not Trump, the people/money/power behind him). The conflict between these two (or more) sides has influenced the scandals we're seeing splashed across the papers and cable news channels for the past 3 years or so. Think of Brexit as the kick off. That conflict, by the very nature that a control system that's been in place for generations is under assault, creates cracks in the manufactured/curated reality presented to us by the information/news complex world wide. This has allowed us to occasionally see through those cracks and into the machinery at work. Which, if done honestly, forces one to reexamine the entire context of these headline grabbing scandals. The creation of the Russian collusion narrative - and how it has been pushed by witting and unwitting media members/talking heads across the political spectrum - is the best example of this. And should be an informative one. The evidence of how the conspiracy worked to falsify evidence used to get FISA warrants, relying on a select few, high ranking members of multiple federal agencies, the White House, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, and the mainstream media is all there for people to see and judge for themselves. It's unambiguous evidence, that clearly presents the presence of a conspiracy to overthrow - or at least undermine - a legally elected President because he didn't/wouldn't conform to the policies of the establishment. In other words, the people chose the wrong president thus he must be overthrown. That should be alarming to anyone regardless of their opinions on Trump or their political party of choice because it sets the precedent that if the people elect someone the system doesn't agree with, the system - not the people - get to have the final say. Think of how !@#$ing dangerous that is to a democratic republic's long term health. That's really what's at the core of all of this, that's what's driven me to learn more, to share the evidence I and others have found yet the mainstream media (of all partisan stripes) has gone out of its way to ignore. That last bit is important too. The amount of evidence backing up the engineered coup, compared to the amount of evidence backing up Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy, is much stronger. Yet it's ignored by and large by the corporate media complex, even right leaning ones. Why? That alone should raise the suspicions of most that there's an artificial component to the way the media has covered and continues to cover this story. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 35 minutes ago, GG said: I'm not deflecting. Isn't it odd that Papa has been sitting on his guilty plea for almost a year? The two most obvious moves ahead of sentencing would be a) to recant the guilty pleas as more information comes to light or b) for the judges to reject the guilty plea as more information comes to light. It all rides on what come out next from Horowitz or Huber. If Greggy is correct, those three guilty pleas are toast. Upthread you mentioned (Carter) Page. He has not been indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Upthread you mentioned (Carter) Page. He has not been indicted. You're correct that I shouldn't have included Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 hours ago, westside said: Brennan - fired Clapper - fired Comey - fired Strozsk - fired Page - fired Only In the land of the trumptards YOU'RE FIRED! is worse than guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 hours ago, donbb said: Only In the land of the trumptards YOU'RE FIRED! is worse than guilty. Saved for quotation later. When strozkskmsak, McCabe, others are charged this same issue is going to arise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 So.... Now even Lanny Davis is saying the Steele dossier is bogus. (Cohen has still never been to Prague - but that won't stop the narrative). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHARDTRUTH Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 7 hours ago, GG said: I'm not deflecting. Isn't it odd that Papa has been sitting on his guilty plea for almost a year? The two most obvious moves ahead of sentencing would be a) to recant the guilty pleas as more information comes to light or b) for the judges to reject the guilty plea as more information comes to light. It all rides on what come out next from Horowitz or Huber. If Greggy is correct, those three guilty pleas are toast. Your hilarious. Once a judge accepts a plea deal, he cant overturn it. The defendant also waives his right to appeal during the plea ceremony so good luck getting it overturned if new info comes out. Your clueless. Keep making things up though. Im sure your idiot Trumptard friends will believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, THEHARDTRUTH said: Your hilarious. Once a judge accepts a plea deal, he cant overturn it. The defendant also waives his right to appeal during the plea ceremony so good luck getting it overturned if new info comes out. Your clueless. Keep making things up though. Im sure your idiot Trumptard friends will believe you. You're wrong. There are circumstances when the plea deal can be vacated, especially when there has been malfeasance by the prosecution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, THEHARDTRUTH said: Your hilarious. Once a judge accepts a plea deal, he cant overturn it. The defendant also waives his right to appeal during the plea ceremony so good luck getting it overturned if new info comes out. Your clueless. Keep making things up though. Im sure your idiot Trumptard friends will believe you. Well, this is a bunch of ignorant bullschiff. You might want to try reading Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, chief. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: Well, this is a bunch of ignorant bullschiff. You might want to try reading Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, chief. 1 Question - the Lanny Davis involvement really raises a lot of eyebrows. What happens if it is found that someone (some entity) paid Cohen to take a plea deal? Is that legal? I'm not suggesting the prosecutors, I am suggesting someone er, close, to Lanny Davis. IOW can Cohen accept money from a third party to take a plea that in some way benefits another party? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHARDTRUTH Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Well, this is a bunch of ignorant bullschiff. You might want to try reading Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, chief. Just did. Dont think "new information coming to light" rises to the level of "the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." Thats right out of the statute. He said earlier the pleas were highly suspect. I asked for facts that support that argument and he came back with a bunch of crap. Since your the legal expert feel free to take his place. Get me some facts and case law that support his position. Facts are the most important thing here. Im sure youll be able to find cases where plea deals got tossed. But do they apply here. Thats the question. His answer is absolute crap. Generalities that mean nothing. He said the plea deals where highly suspect. Based on what? Because Trump or that idiot Sara Sanders said so? Good luck makibg that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Question - the Lanny Davis involvement really raises a lot of eyebrows. What happens if it is found that someone (some entity) paid Cohen to take a plea deal? Is that legal? I'm not suggesting the prosecutors, I am suggesting someone er, close, to Lanny Davis. IOW can Cohen accept money from a third party to take a plea that in some way benefits another party? Ask Pearl. He will tell you over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Question - the Lanny Davis involvement really raises a lot of eyebrows. What happens if it is found that someone (some entity) paid Cohen to take a plea deal? Is that legal? I'm not suggesting the prosecutors, I am suggesting someone er, close, to Lanny Davis. IOW can Cohen accept money from a third party to take a plea that in some way benefits another party? I wonder who is paying Lanny Davis for representing Cohen and if the fundme account is partially a smoke screen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts