Omarosa: ends exactly how you knew it would

tommy1808 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:40 am

Tugger wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
It's certainly more pertinent than the liberal push to require disclosure of an income tax return.

100% disagree. Don't understand how you can think this as a moderate.

At the very minimum (and a moderate position...) they are equal. A tax return tells a story just as much as a birth certificate.

Tugg

Tax returns tell much more of a story than a birth certificate. The only difference between a US citizen living in the US since lets say 6 month old and one born on US soil is legal. You also don´t chose where you are born or by whom, but you almost certainly decide what you do to get money.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:46 am

seb146 wrote:
He broke the law. Impeach. Now. LOCK HIM UP

Better take control of congress, incapacitate him (limit the Presidents use of the military to counter overt attacks and such), keep the investigation going, get an arrest warrant and carry it out the moment he leaves the White House. Curtailing Trump will fare much better in the court of public opinion than doing so to President Pence. Don´t want Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada in charge of the US nuclear arsenal either.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:49 am

It does not matter. It is about winning an Trump won the election. One right fringe vote counts as much as any other.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:45 am

seb146 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
seb146 wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/63586039 ... on-clinton

Under American law

THIS
IS
ILLEGAL

And, one other point:

OBAMA
NEVER
DID
IT

That’s not evidence that Trump Sr. colluded with Russia. The article is about somebody else and the evidence in the article is that Trump didn’t even know about the meeting.

Did you not read his tweet where he admitted he knew and encouraged the law to be broken?

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-a ... -1.6342816

From his tweet

This was a meeting to get information on an opponent,

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, flies like a duck, it must be a trout according to your logic.

He broke the law. Impeach. Now. LOCK HIM UP

You left out the part where he says that he did not know about the meeting. By your standard, that is evidence that Trump did not collude.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:47 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
It's certainly more pertinent than the liberal push to require disclosure of an income tax return.

100% disagree. Don't understand how you can think this as a moderate.

At the very minimum (and a moderate position...) they are equal. A tax return tells a story just as much as a birth certificate.

Tugg

Tax returns tell much more of a story than a birth certificate. The only difference between a US citizen living in the US since lets say 6 month old and one born on US soil is legal. You also don´t chose where you are born or by whom, but you almost certainly decide what you do to get money.

best regards
Thomas

The Constitution does not require that candidates tell stories. It does require that they are natural born citizens.

tommy1808 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:02 am

VTKillarney wrote:
The Constitution does not require that candidates tell stories. It does require that they are natural born citizens.

It doesn't day anyone has to produce a birth certificate either.

Best regards
Thomas

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:06 am

tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
The Constitution does not require that candidates tell stories. It does require that they are natural born citizens.

It doesn't day anyone has to produce a birth certificate either.

Best regards
Thomas

Uh... okay. Nobody said that.

What was said is that a birth certificate is the best evidence that a candidate meets the Constitutionaly mandated qualification.

tommy1808 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:21 am

VTKillarney wrote:
What was said is that a birth certificate is the best evidence that a candidate meets the Constitutionaly mandated qualification.

if it was evidence, let along the best evidence, the birther movement would have been dead the moment Obama made his long form certificate public.

Didn´t help, hence it seems to be a rather irrelevant piece of paper.

best regards
Thomas

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:38 am

tommy1808 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
What was said is that a birth certificate is the best evidence that a candidate meets the Constitutionaly mandated qualification.

if it was evidence, let along the best evidence, the birther movement would have been dead the moment Obama made his long form certificate public.

Didn´t help, hence it seems to be a rather irrelevant piece of paper.

best regards
Thomas

So you are going to let the birthers dictate what documents are proper? Uh... okay. I guess we differ in that regard. You can empower them if you choose, I suppose.

jetero · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:01 pm

If VTK's standard of taking a proven liar at his word (i.e., that he didn't know about the meeting . . . what a crock of sh*t) constitutes evidence, well then I guess we can accept the following as well.

DONALD TRUMP KNEW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED THEM, OMAROSA SAYS

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-knew-cli ... sa-1072713

The can be added to the body of evidence that includes:

-The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting attended by Junior, Manafort, and Kushner under the pretense of obtaining "dirt" (only an absolute partisan would think there's zero chance Trumpy Bear didn't know, certainly not a "moderate")

-The Trumpy Bear statement two days before the Trump Tower meeting that he was going to give a "major speech" discussing "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons"

-The "Russia if you're listening" and "I love WikiLeaks" comments

Along with oodles and oodles and oodles of other "coinkydinks." No doubt Mueller has tons more.

Trump has already moved on to the "So what?" defense. Surprised one of his more shameless apologists hasn't gotten his bat signal yet.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:06 pm

jetero wrote:
If VTK's standard of taking a proven liar at his word (i.e., that he didn't know about the meeting . . . what a crock of sh*t) constitutes evidence, well then I guess we can accept the following as well.

It's not "my" standard. It's the standard that others here gave, although I don't disagree with the standard.

You are arguing about the weight the evidence should be given - not whether it is evidence in and of itself. Big difference.

jetero · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:07 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
jetero wrote:
If VTK's standard of taking a proven liar at his word (i.e., that he didn't know about the meeting . . . what a crock of sh*t) constitutes evidence, well then I guess we can accept the following as well.

It's not "my" standard. It's the standard that others here gave, although I don't disagree with the standard.

You are arguing about the weight the evidence should be given - not whether it is evidence in and of itself. Big difference.

And . . . ?

jetero · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:09 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
jetero wrote:
If VTK's standard of taking a proven liar at his word (i.e., that he didn't know about the meeting . . . what a crock of sh*t) constitutes evidence, well then I guess we can accept the following as well.

It's not "my" standard. It's the standard that others here gave, although I don't disagree with the standard.

You are arguing about the weight the evidence should be given - not whether it is evidence in and of itself. Big difference.

Wait, I think this constitutes progress in VTK's world . . .

he agrees that there is evidence that Trump colluded.

We're getting there!

(Get ready for a "That's not what I said!" mental contortion :hissyfit:

)

I don't think you would do very well on the witness stand, VTK.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:10 pm

jetero wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
jetero wrote:
If VTK's standard of taking a proven liar at his word (i.e., that he didn't know about the meeting . . . what a crock of sh*t) constitutes evidence, well then I guess we can accept the following as well.

It's not "my" standard. It's the standard that others here gave, although I don't disagree with the standard.

You are arguing about the weight the evidence should be given - not whether it is evidence in and of itself. Big difference.

And . . . ?

And it was improper of you to infer the weight that I would give the evidence. Which is exactly what you did.

jetero · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:19 pm

2122M wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
jetero wrote:

Not really an answer to 212’s very simple question.

You referred to your preferred “moderate” news sources.

What are they?

(BTW, whilst “tied up,” you somehow managed more than 10 responses to other posts.)

I assumed that it was obvious that I provided the chart because it comports with my opinion.

That’s a round about way of not answering a question. I asked what your ‘moderate’ news source was and you googled ‘moderate news sources’. Then sent a link without answering the question.

Are we still canoodling on this simple question a day later? Are you afraid to admit the news sources you actually consider “moderate,” or do you just not read the news and trust your gut instinct?

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:23 pm

jetero wrote:
2122M wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I assumed that it was obvious that I provided the chart because it comports with my opinion.

That’s a round about way of not answering a question. I asked what your ‘moderate’ news source was and you googled ‘moderate news sources’. Then sent a link without answering the question.

Are we still canoodling on this simple question a day later? Are you afraid to admit the news sources you actually consider “moderate,” or do you just not read the news and trust your gut instinct?

I'm committed to making sure that this thread is not about me personally, but is rather about the topic itself.

Simply put, I have no desire to get into personal matters with you or anyone else on this forum.

All the best.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:28 pm

The articles did not provide evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. If you care to point out where they did, I am all ears.

So far... crickets.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:31 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
jetero wrote:
2122M wrote:

That’s a round about way of not answering a question. I asked what your ‘moderate’ news source was and you googled ‘moderate news sources’. Then sent a link without answering the question.

Are we still canoodling on this simple question a day later? Are you afraid to admit the news sources you actually consider “moderate,” or do you just not read the news and trust your gut instinct?

I'm committed to making sure that this thread is not about me personally, but is rather about the topic itself.

Simply put, I have no desire to get into personal matters with you or anyone else on this forum.

All the best.

YOU made the claim that the Birthers didn't get as much media attention. YOU made argument that it must not have been as big a deal because the media YOU pay attention to ignored it. If that's YOUR argument, then asking about YOUR media intake is just the same as asking for a source.

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:39 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
It's certainly more pertinent than the liberal push to require disclosure of an income tax return.

100% disagree. Don't understand how you can think this as a moderate.

At the very minimum (and a moderate position...) they are equal. A tax return tells a story just as much as a birth certificate.

Tugg

Tax returns tell much more of a story than a birth certificate. The only difference between a US citizen living in the US since lets say 6 month old and one born on US soil is legal. You also don´t chose where you are born or by whom, but you almost certainly decide what you do to get money.

best regards
Thomas

Yes, I know, that is why I said "at the very minimum" because there is really no way to say that a tax return isn't actually a better information source of the quality of a candidate than a birth certificate.

Tugg

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:43 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
The Constitution does not require that candidates tell stories. It does require that they are natural born citizens.

Please define "natural born citizen".

And just as laws need to be passed to require a birth certificate, laws could also be similarly passed requiring the release of tax returns to run for president. And since one is a constitutional element and the other provides additional important information, one should be able to support both of they support one.

But again, you still need to define precisely what a "natural born citizen" is and have everyone agree to it.

Tugg

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 pm

Tugger wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
The Constitution does not require that candidates tell stories. It does require that they are natural born citizens.

Please define "natural born citizen".

And just as laws need to be passed to require a birth certificate, laws could also be similarly passed requiring the release of tax returns to run for president. And since one is a constitutional element and the other provides additional important information, one should be able to support both of they support one.

But again, you still need to define precisely what a "natural born citizen" is and have everyone agree to it.

Tugg

I'd be fine with a law requiring the release of tax returns. Call your congressman and get it rolling. As it is, that is currently not US law.

The main problem I have with tax returns is that the vast majority of the american public has no clue what the numbers on a tax return even mean. Trump's tax returns are likely so complicated that it would be a media circus of sensationalist tweets about this number or that number.

Like when the one tax return was released showing massive losses one year. Media blew up "he's a terrible businessman! look at all those losses!"

To be quite honest I'm surprised his returns never got leaked. 40 thousand plus employees at the IRS and not a single one of them leaked it. That's pretty impressive!

Personally, I'd like to see them just because I'm curious, but I don't really care either way.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:39 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see them just because I'm curious, but I don't really care either way.

Surely you would care if his tax returns showed that he was massively indebted to state controlled Russian banks, right? That would matter.

To a lesser degree, after all his attacks on the Clinton Foundation, I'd be curious to see what his charitable giving looks like. Also, he's bragged about using the system to his advantage, so I'd bet that he has paid very little in tax over the years, and that never plays well to the middle class taxpayer that doesn't have access to those kinds of deductions or accounting gymnastics.

Finally, I bet he's not nearly as rich as he claims to be. His whole image was built around how successful he is. If it turns out he (like Manafort) was facing dire economic times or barely treading water, it might tarnish that image.

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:41 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
I'd be fine with a law requiring the release of tax returns. Call your congressman and get it rolling. As it is, that is currently not US law.

Exactly. And the same goes for a birth certificate being provided. There is no law requiring it. There is just the requirement in the Constitution that the person be "natural born". So pass the laws, define the requirement, which for the birth certificate must also then pass constitutional muster (which likely means a fairly broad official legal requirement due to the nebulousness of "natural born").

Tugg

cledaybuck · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:41 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
And what does MikeDrop mean by saying "didn't call for impeachment before he was even inaugurated"? What does that make the whole birther thing where you have all these Repukes [sic] screaming how "Obama is not born in US"

The birther movement was always a fringe movement. Those calling for Trump's impeachment are much more mainstream within their party than the birthers were. I certainly don't recall any sitting members of Congress being strong advocates for the birther movement (although I may be mistaken), as compared to the members of Congress that openly call for impeachment.

What? You know who was big into the birther movement, right? If not, I will give you a hint. He is currently the President of the United States.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:47 pm

2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Surely you would care if his tax returns showed that he was massively indebted to state controlled Russian banks, right? That would matter.

That level of detail wouldn't be on a return, would it?

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:52 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Surely you would care if his tax returns showed that he was massively indebted to state controlled Russian banks, right? That would matter.

That level of detail wouldn't be on a return, would it?

Edit: They do in a way via interest expense deductions and on the balance sheet.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:55 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Surely you would care if his tax returns showed that he was massively indebted to state controlled Russian banks, right? That would matter.

That level of detail wouldn't be on a return, would it?

His full 12,000 page return filing? yes.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:57 pm

The one thing that you wouldn't see is how much debt there was. Just that he was making payments on loans to said bank. It could be millions or just a few hundred dollars.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:01 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
The one thing that you wouldn't see is how much debt there was. Just that he was making payments on loans to said bank. It could be millions or just a few hundred dollars.

So it really wouldn't give people the substantive information that they are looking for.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:02 pm

It looks like someone else had a habit of giving Omarosa several jobs within the White House despite quickly learning that she was (allegedly) a horrible employee. That would be the Clinton administration.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/omarosas ... efore.html

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:20 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
It looks like someone else had a habit of giving Omarosa several jobs within the White House despite quickly learning that she was (allegedly) a horrible employee. That would be the Clinton administration.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/omarosas ... efore.html

"But.... But.... Clinton!"

If anything, this is even more damaging to Trump. She already had a terrible employment history as a junior staffer at the White House.

WHY DID HE HIRE HER?!?

seb146 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:30 pm

Why was Omarosa in the Situation Room? Why was she being paid $15,000 a month? What was her exact job? If "both sides do it" (the new right wing mantra) then where are secret recordings of Obama meeting with Russia to get dirt on Romney and secret recordings of Obama using slurs and horrible language about others? We can not say Hillary because, even though a majority of Americans wanted her in the White House, she is not.

Both sides do it, so prove it, righties. We have proven how the orange one who shall not be named is a misogynist, liar, cheater, fraud, colluded with Russia, hates minorities, etc.

And that's another thing: for eight years, all we heard was how secretive Obama was. How he expanded the government and massive government over reach (started by the previous administration) and how there was so much secrecy for eight years. Now, all of that IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and we hear crickets from those same people. Why?

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:32 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
So it really wouldn't give people the substantive information that they are looking for.

Yes, it would actually.

Think of a map of a city, it really doesn't give you "substantive information" about the city itself but it helps you get around and know where to go and look and find what you need.

Tugg

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:32 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
The one thing that you wouldn't see is how much debt there was. Just that he was making payments on loans to said bank. It could be millions or just a few hundred dollars.

So it really wouldn't give people the substantive information that they are looking for.

No, just payments to and from and interest statements. And honestly, there's likely shell companies and other entities in the way for dealing with various regional transactions. So you'd likely just see that on a Trump return anyways.

As I said earlier, a return is very nuanced and complicated and can be dangerously interpreted by someone who has no idea what they are looking at. Especially one as long as Trump's would be.

Anyways, sorry to derail.

zakuivcustom · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:37 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
It looks like someone else had a habit of giving Omarosa several jobs within the White House despite quickly learning that she was (allegedly) a horrible employee. That would be the Clinton administration.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/omarosas ... efore.html

Ahh...the good ol' "But Clinton..." excuse.

Also, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Mr. Dennison knows her history, and yet, still hires her. I guess it works nice for both parties (both are attention grabbers aka the "look at me" type) until things blow up in their face.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:44 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
It looks like someone else had a habit of giving Omarosa several jobs within the White House despite quickly learning that she was (allegedly) a horrible employee. That would be the Clinton administration.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/omarosas ... efore.html

Ahh...the good ol' "But Clinton..." excuse.

I am missing the part where this was offered as any sort of an excuse. Hang on... let me go back and check... Okay, I'm back. No such comment was made.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:37 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
It looks like someone else had a habit of giving Omarosa several jobs within the White House despite quickly learning that she was (allegedly) a horrible employee. That would be the Clinton administration.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/omarosas ... efore.html

Ahh...the good ol' "But Clinton..." excuse.

I am missing the part where this was offered as any sort of an excuse. Hang on... let me go back and check... Okay, I'm back. No such comment was made.

excuse, deflection, diversion, misdirection. Its all the same 'run home to Clinton' instinct from those defending Trump.

The hilarious thing is that deflecting back to Omarosa's poor WH work history just makes Trump look like an even bigger idiot for hiring her.

seahawk · Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:45 pm

2122M wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:

Ahh...the good ol' "But Clinton..." excuse.

I am missing the part where this was offered as any sort of an excuse. Hang on... let me go back and check... Okay, I'm back. No such comment was made.

excuse, deflection, diversion, misdirection. Its all the same 'run home to Clinton' instinct from those defending Trump.

The hilarious thing is that deflecting back to Omarosa's poor WH work history just makes Trump look like an even bigger idiot for hiring her.

Well Trump acted, Obama did not. So again there is no proof for your theory.

wingman · Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:51 pm

A reality tv star buffoon hiring a reality tv star moron and the terrible consequences of such should be confined to reality tv. Alas, here they are displayed at the very pinnacle of our government. Another 15 months and then we can vote this bloated orange clown out of office and pretend like hell it never happened. At my age it’s the only thing that makes me look forward to the passgae of time.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
2122M wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I am missing the part where this was offered as any sort of an excuse. Hang on... let me go back and check... Okay, I'm back. No such comment was made.

excuse, deflection, diversion, misdirection. Its all the same 'run home to Clinton' instinct from those defending Trump.

The hilarious thing is that deflecting back to Omarosa's poor WH work history just makes Trump look like an even bigger idiot for hiring her.

Well Trump acted, Obama did not. So again there is no proof for your theory.

You're joking, right?

A) She worked for Gore in the Clinton administration. Nothing to do with Obama

B) She was a junior staffer. I doubt presidents make hiring firing decisions at the junior staffer level for the VP.

C) Whoever was making decision did fire her. She got kicked out of 3 departments and then WAS asked to leave.

seahawk · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:00 pm

2122M wrote:
seahawk wrote:
2122M wrote:

excuse, deflection, diversion, misdirection. Its all the same 'run home to Clinton' instinct from those defending Trump.

The hilarious thing is that deflecting back to Omarosa's poor WH work history just makes Trump look like an even bigger idiot for hiring her.

Well Trump acted, Obama did not. So again there is no proof for your theory.

You're joking, right?

A) She worked for Gore in the Clinton administration. Nothing to do with Obama

B) She was a junior staffer. I doubt presidents make hiring firing decisions at the junior staffer level for the VP.

C) Whoever was making decision did fire her. She got kicked out of 3 departments and then WAS asked to leave.

So you agree that Trump was the person who finally removed the unqualified person.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
2122M wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Well Trump acted, Obama did not. So again there is no proof for your theory.

You're joking, right?

A) She worked for Gore in the Clinton administration. Nothing to do with Obama

B) She was a junior staffer. I doubt presidents make hiring firing decisions at the junior staffer level for the VP.

C) Whoever was making decision did fire her. She got kicked out of 3 departments and then WAS asked to leave.

So you agree that Trump was the person who finally removed the unqualified person.

I'll agree with that the day he decides to resign.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:11 pm

Honestly, at this point I'm pretty sure the Omarossa story is just a shell game to distract everyone from something else. No one seems to be talking about mueller or Manafort right now. Despite closing arguments happening as I type this.

Probably something like Trump declaring we will no longer utilize our own means of transport to the ISS and rely solely on Russian Soyuz transportation. Oh wait. (but seriously imagine if he had declared the shutting down of the shuttle program and relying on Russians instead. Oh the hysteria :rotfl:

)

aviationaware · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:15 pm

I disapprove of President Trump calling Omarosa a dog. Dogs are loveable, loyal creatures. Omarosa is a disloyal piece of shit.

trpmb6 wrote:
Honestly, at this point I'm pretty sure the Omarossa story is just a shell game to distract everyone from something else. No one seems to be talking about mueller or Manafort right now. Despite closing arguments happening as I type this.

That's because even the dumbest media types have realized that the Manafort trial is not even remotely about Trump or the invented specter of Russia collusion. It's about unrelated financial fraud crimes that are boring and of little relevance to the general public. Those crimes were never covered by Mueller's mandate and should have been conducted by the normal FBI.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:21 pm

aviationaware wrote:

That's because even the dumbest media types have realized that the Manafort trial is not even remotely about Trump or the invented specter of Russia collusion. It's about unrelated financial fraud crimes that are boring and of little relevance to the general public. Those crimes were never covered by Mueller's mandate and should have been conducted by the normal FBI.

Oh they covered it quite extensively. Up until the point they realized there wasn't much to use from the proceedings in their narrative against Trump. It's better for them to quietly bury the Manafort story in the off-chance that the Jury comes back hung or produces an acquittal.

aviationaware · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:26 pm

Oh, you mean a shell game from the other side! Oh well, you might just be right lol. But I guess that book required too much leg.

DLFREEBIRD · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:27 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Even Michael Cohen, who has no love for Trump and no problem speaking out against him, has said that Omarosa has lied.

Some of Trump's most intense critics in the media have also shot down Omarosa's credibility, including CNN's April Ryan, Ana Navarro, and Brian Stelter.

The left insisting that Omarosa is credible will be the biggest gift the Republicans ever had.

your comments ABOUT her credibility is why she recorded Trump. DUH

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:33 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Oh, you mean a shell game from the other side! Oh well, you might just be right lol. But I guess that book required too much leg.

Eh, I'm playing both sides here. Omarossa presented a decent story for MSM to play to make Trump look bad. Trump could be using the story to distract from something else too. Who knows.

It'll all go away in a day or so. Certainly by Friday.

DLFREEBIRD · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:35 pm

aviationaware wrote:
I disapprove of President Trump calling Omarosa a dog. Dogs are loveable, loyal creatures. Omarosa is a disloyal piece of shit.

trpmb6 wrote:
Honestly, at this point I'm pretty sure the Omarossa story is just a shell game to distract everyone from something else. No one seems to be talking about mueller or Manafort right now. Despite closing arguments happening as I type this.

That's because even the dumbest media types have realized that the Manafort trial is not even remotely about Trump or the invented specter of Russia collusion. It's about unrelated financial fraud crimes that are boring and of little relevance to the general public. Those crimes were never covered by Mueller's mandate and should have been conducted by the normal FBI.

and the dumbest Trump support, has to realized that Trump been firing top FBI leaders, to discourage probing into his families business links to Russia.

2122M · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:42 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Those crimes were never covered by Mueller's mandate and should have been conducted by the normal FBI.

Really? How come all the judges that have looked into this case think otherwise. Are you privy to some information they don't have?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1HB0E7

https://www.businessinsider.com/virgini ... ase-2018-6

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net