Just background.
By Patrick Van Roy On January 13th, 2019First off I want to say I can’t stand Judge Jeanine Piro she’s a clone of my maternal aunt Rita who god rest her soul I loved dearly, but was a typical highly educated south philly whop broad. Fun and crazy as hell but they’ll rip your eyeballs out and play marbles with them.
The Person she’s talking to however is Representative Jim Jordan. The Head of the Freedom Caucus in the House the only group in office I give any real backing to.
If you want the side you’re not hearing in other words what republicans actually feel and will tell you themselves, you’ll listen to what he says. He speaks for more people than you think.
Congressman @Jim_Jordan joined me on set with reaction to my exclusive interview with @realDonaldTrump, take a look : pic.twitter.com/MHhkBAV3Wi
— Jeanine Pirro (@JudgeJeanine) January 13, 2019
Pat, is this from Maggie Haberman of the NYT correct? :
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1084274236045312000
Funny how Pat thinks every one who talks whack a doodle double speak, speaks for the majority
Trump has been witness tampering for some time now
And very few Republicans are calling him on it. He is dumping tractor trailer loads of cyanide into the swamp, and they all think it’s great
Hi from London
From one of the comments Phantom:
lol. these comments are so ridiculous. you have lost your minds.
Is that correct Patty?
The Cult needs to get their story straight
Please stop being so demanding, And asking them to think for themselves
Paul and Phantom, I can’t get interested in the type of baloney fed to you by the MSM. It just goes on and on and doesn’t really address any actual news. I already know NYT hates Trump and I already know you think the Orange Man Bad.
Last night Pirro had a question for Trump:
“I’m going to ask you, are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Ms. Pirro asked.
“I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked,” he answered.”
He could have easily said “no” but did not. It is tantamount to admitting being a Russian agent. It confirms what many suspect. Now, what is to be done about it?
New Yorker: that is ridiculous.
Trump Derangement Syndrome = twisting normal English into pretzel shaped nonsense to “prove” incorrect notions.
See “fact checking” of Trump’s speech the other night about the Southern border for further examples.
Trump has said- numerous times – that there was no collusion with the Russians during the Presidential campaign.
And that’s it, people! all the Russian collusion stuff is conspiracy theory at best, and at worst, an organized attempt to over turn the election of our President.
“Trump has said- numerous times – that there was no collusion with the Russians during the Presidential campaign.” And, Trump is well known for telling the truth. BTW, it is not just during the campaign but up to the present.
Why did Trump not simply say “no”? Instead he utters some irrelevant drivel.
Here’s the transcript of Trump’s response NY’er :
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1084463782359957504
Note that he doesn’t say ‘no’.
https://dailystormer.name/there-is-still-no-proof-that-the-evil-jew-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-alive/
I reckon that there was a vacancy when the Stephen Hawking hoax was unsustainable, and The Ginsborg will be the follow-up. Whatever it takes to stop Trump nominating an American to the SCOTUS.
Right now, in various locations in the US, around 12 – 15 middle-aged women are being primed to have ‘recollections’ of having been groped at school by an as-yet unnamed 16-year-old male.
Paul McMahon
Thanks. In his drivel he states that the FBI found nothing. The FBI investigation had to be approved by the Department of Justice which requires a high degree of evidence for approval, especially for investigation of a president. The FBI had to have something hard on Trump which was passed on to Mueller and that is not yet public.
Patty
There was collusion
The only question is was there a crime
Phantom, still in London? You’re missing some good football stateside!
NFL Playoff games would normally be widely available in the pubs, But this time around, I screwed up
Am staying at a place in Kensington where none of the ( excellent ) Pubs nearby had the games on
The usual endless soccer 🙂
There is zero evidence of collusion, Phantom. Turn off CNN.
Progressives in the US are pathetic.
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/01/13/proof-of-collusion-trump-campaign-had-100-contacts-with-russians.html
Politicususa…… what a frigging rag. When I look at the sources you pull from it explains why you’re so ignorant of anything but tripe.
2 questions
1) What is the crime of Collusion?
Seriously what statute, what are the penalties, how do you commit the crime.
2) Explain when, where, and how Trump violated this imaginary crime.
Jim Jordan had a lot of good information for you in that clip, rather than read spin from wackjob sources like the ones you sight you could hear actual statement from one of the caucus heads and know exactly what the post is about. At least what the politician actually said and oh I don’t discuss it…..
Stay in London.
( You are arguing with yourself )
Anyone who thinks they will learn something from the Pirro show hasn’t learned anything from life itself.
yes because if you don’t read the NYT or watch CNN your stupid…. but if you do you’ll be super smart and elect people like De Blasio and Ms Cortez…. roflmao
Alright Phantom you don’t believe collusion is a crime, but you do believe it took place…. so what took place?
That’s not what I said
Cheers
cheers… oh I get it you’ll fight with a woman, but when it comes to another man who will demand actual answers from you….. it cheers.
wuss
eeeww I know you can read USA today and get good objective reporting with paragraphs like this in in their stories……
Your president collided with the criminal Putin, An enemy of the United States
And you dead Enders own that. You are fine with it. You will always defend it
Perhaps not illegal, definitely unethical And borderline treasonous
I don’t think people who don’t read the NYT or CNN are stupid. I can’t say the same thing about people who write “your stupid”.
How did he collide with him…. did he hit him with a golf cart?
Name one piece of collusion.
you are stupid Mahons…. educated, but severely stupid.
No matter how well you spell…… although I did have to point out your spelling mistake in your last post just like Phantoms misspelling in his last comment….. what’s the matter no secretaries to proof read?
“Name one piece of collusion.”
You mean like Paul Manafort’s links with the GRU?
They have no evidence of Trump colluding.
Manafort’s links are irrelevant.
You can listen to MSM scream “collusion” all you want – but like the other propaganda attempts “Trump’s unstable!” “Trump is lazy!” “Trump is a liar” “Trump doesn’t really want to be President!” “Trump will start a nuclear war!” “Trump will crash the economy” on and on and on and on.
Damn, it would be nice if the opposition party were actually in good faith.
Every thing is irrelevant when you want it to be irrelevant. As to whether or not it is actually relevant I believe that is for Robert Mueller and, after that, a jury of Donald Trump’s peers to determine.
“Damn, it would be nice if the opposition party were actually in good faith.”
When was the last time that happened?
Their eyes and their brains are completely shot
and has anything involving manafort been connected to trump?
I have seen multiple connections of manafort and the podesta bros, but so far no Trump.
No just the opposite, show my eyes some evidence and my brain will work it into his prosecution…. so far they haven’t shown shit, but hey bubble boy is convinced.
You present nothing Phantom….. You’ve been asked a million times to make your case against Trump other than your personal feelings. You can’t produce one thing he has done wrong as a candidate or President.
Yet when anyone questions you on your lack of evidence even innuendo you spin deflect or run away. While condemning anyone that doesn’t hold your point of view.
You don’t have the knowledge nor intelligence to make a logical case against him. Your lack of ever doing so when asked to proves it.
Obama was a corrupt wanna be dictator and the clintons are guilty of treason and violations of the rico act….. I can cite incidences of actions and the Laws they violated. I have done so several times.
You lack the talent to come up with one cohesive charge with an incident and a violated law against Trump. Of course it would require creativity because since he has done nothing you would have to fabricate it… which is way beyond your gifts.
If they had anything on Trump, it would have been presented by now. It’s time to shut down this open ended witch hunt. Maybe Mueller should go vacation in P.R. with his Dem buddies.
Charles – Mueller is a decorated combat Marine and a Republican with decades of highly respected public service. Are you really suggesting he is conducting a partisan witchhunt?
Mahons, I’m suggesting that the open ended nature of the investigation lends itself to mischief. What ever happened to probable cause, or the nature of the warrant, where the government had to show exactly what they were looking for?
To my mind, the Mueller investigation is a solution desperately seeking a problem.
“What ever happened to probable cause, or the nature of the warrant, where the government had to show exactly what they were looking for?”
Are you telling me that before a police investigation can begin the police must show probable cause? They must have probable cause. They don’t have to show it.
There have been investigations in the past into criminal behaviour that have lasted years, decades maybe, before the target of the investigation was even informed.
Charles – these types of investigations can take years, Muellers has already led to convictions. So far no court has to my knowledge found any mischief in his actions. So I again ask you, is it your claim he is engaging in a witchhunt?
Charles
You’re too good a man to be making stories for this bum at this point
Cmon
A definition would be helpful here. By “witch hunt” I mean having carte blanche to investigate the President and his associates to find ANYTHING the can that is illegal. If that were done to you or me, alter boys that we are, I’m sure they could find something untoward.
Do you think I am misinformed (as may be the case) as to the nature of the investigation?
Phantom, I don’t think the president is a bum. Quite the opposite. He may be a bull in the china closet. but I support his policies.
For instance, you yourself support border security even though you are a Never-Trumper. Try to separate your dislike of the President personally with your agreement with his policies.
“By “witch hunt” I mean having carte blanche to investigate the President and his associates to find ANYTHING the can that is illegal.”
By definition a witch hunt is any attempt to find evidence of something that doesn’t exist. ie finding evidence that the woman is in fact a witch. So any investigation set up to reach a predetermined outcome regardless of the evidence would be a witch hunt.
The process you describe (which I don’t agree is what is happening) would probably be more accurately described as a fishing expedition – something that isn’t exactly without precedent in American law enforcement.
Charles – an investigator like Mueller has a broad scope (as authorized by AG and statute) but not cart blanche. Mueller has not been given cart blanche and I am curious to know where you think he has overstepped his authority.
The Mueller investigation is based on the Steel Dossier and Fraudulent Fisa Warrants manufactured by Yates, McCabe. Comey, and Lynch.
Now they have found crimes with Cohen and Manafort nothing though that involve Trump.
The whole investigation is fruit from the poisoned tree and needs to be all thrown out.
They falsified evidence for warrants 4 times. Everybody involved in the FISA warrants needs to go to jail for sedition and every crime Mueller has found should be tossed.
“Now they have found crimes with Cohen and Manafort nothing though that involve Trump.”
I wouldn’t agree with that. Cohen has stated that he committed his crimes at the instruction of Donald Trump. If that is true, and can be verified, then they likely have Trump dead to rights.
It is also not true to suggest that the FISA warrants were fraudulent.
Charles
A bum and a thief ( he is both ) can still advocate some good policies
A good person can advocate bad policies
Seamus, that’s it! A fishing expedition more accurately describes the situation.
Mahons, it’s not that I think he has overstepped his authority, nay, but has been given too much authority. I don’t like the concept of special prosecutor. I didn’t like it under Nixon, nor now.
What they are calling “crimes” Trump ordered him to pay off the hookers.
Congress has and active fund that has shelled out Millions of taxpayer dollars to do the same thing…. so if those two charges are a real crime I want the books of the fund opened to the public and every official that has used the fund made public and prosecuted.
“What they are calling “crimes” Trump ordered him to pay off the hookers.”
No that Trump made a campaign contribution to his own campaign and then didn’t declare it to the FEC.
“Congress has and active fund that has shelled out Millions of taxpayer dollars to do the same thing….”
And I’m sure the details of which are all public. It isn’t below the table. I’m sure all claims are public record. It is to help prevent nuisance suits.
Those “Contributions” are the two payments to the hookers…….. They claim hush money is a campaign contribution.
That’s what makes the fund important all those payments are the FEC violations and no they are sealed records in the fund to protect the innocent of course.
” They claim hush money is a campaign contribution.”
Yes because it was hush money paid to prevent embarrassing stories coming out during an election.
“That’s what makes the fund important all those payments are the FEC violations and no they are sealed records in the fund to protect the innocent of course.”
Not necessarily. If it was done purely to prevent harm during an election then it would be – as long as the details are secret. I imgaine the details are not secret.
Additionally the use of the Congressional fund is made legal by law. It is expressly legal. It was passed via statute – the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
Which exactly what the fund does. It’s hush money for sexual harassment, and every payment agreement is sealed.
Each of those “sealed” payments is Election Material … things the public need to know.
“It’s hush money for sexual harassment, and every payment agreement is sealed.”
It’s not. It may be in some cases, but not universally. Before 1995 Congressmen weren’t subject to workplace regulations – on various things including sexual harassment. But isn’t just used for sexual harassment cases.
And change the law. What they are doing is not illegal. If what Trump is alleged to have done is true then that is illegal. The two are not dissimilar. It is just one is illegal and one is not.
Also two Democrats proposed legislation last term to change that Act. To make these things more public, and to remove the taxpayer from the situation. The bill didn’t pass.
But you guys said that he was the holy swamp drainer guy
Apologies, the a watered down version (which does include ending of anonymity for the Congressmen involved but not ending the taxpayer funding for it) did pass last session. Trump signed it just before Christmas.
So the fund is still there but claims will no longer be confidential.
I’m guessing the “Member and Employee Training and Oversight On Congress Act” or METOO Congress Act was deemed to political a title. So it was renamed the more accurate but less exciting “Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act”.
but all the previous ones still are confidential.
I said he was a demented Carny Barker, but so far he’s done a great job.
“but all the previous ones still are confidential.”
There is probably a legal argument to suggest that the Congressmen probably agreed to settle on the requirement of anonymity (and they could argue they would have fought the case had it not be anonymous). So its moving the goalposts after the game has been played.
oh of course total anonymity, but if someone really wanted to pursue it they could force the books open on the basis of fraud.
They used tax payer money…. that’s where FOIA gets involved, but no one is welling to crack open that can.
The law specifically allows for it. It is expressly written in such a way. Thus there is likely no fraud or ability for an FOI to uncover it. Because what is being done is not only legal but is being done in the very way the law envisaged.
Its a bad law – and thankfully has now been changed – but it was the law.
What Trump (allegedly) did was contrary to law. The two behaviours are the same (in fact Trump’s is likely better as the cases we know about all seem to be completely consensual) but the two actions are not the same in that one is legal (the Congressional Accountability Act) and one was not (illegal campaign contributions).
FOIA in theory unseals anything that a tax dollar was spent on. It was designed to thwart just such laws written by the crooks to protect the crooks… It would take a ton of requests, court orders, redacted, then unredacted versions…. years of bull
but unless it’s military or black ops FOIA is the peoples right to know what every penny of taxpayer money was spent on.
no one on either side want that slush fund audited.
Trump also used his own money….
I think you latched on to the problem. As you say unless it is military or black ops it the Freedom of Information should apply. You put in your own exemptions. So when you start putting in your exemptions, and other people put in theirs, you get a Freedom of Information Act that isn’t worth shit.
FWIW, I don’t believe Trump colluded with Russians to win the election. I simply don’t see why he would or what he would gain from such behaviour. I say this as someone who cannot have any knowledge of what he may or may not have done and I say it as someone who is not a Trump supporter at all, but I do think as far as Trump himdelf is concerned the Mueller investigation will find nothing because there is nothing there.
“Trump also used his own money….”
True. But he also used his own money illegally.
Colm,
I’m not so sure. Its a bit of a Nixon type idea. Why would Nixon do Watergate? Why would he spy on the Democrats when he was going to beat them handily anyway?
Nixon cheated, even when he didn’t need to.
Now Trump was in a far more complicated contest. So if Nixon could cheat when he didn’t need to then I can easily see Trump doing it when he may have needed to.
not illegal not even against FEC regs. It’s sop.
and the two exceptions I cite are the only two that are written in the law to protect methods and sources.
“not illegal not even against FEC regs”
If Cohen’s claims are true then Trump’s actions are illegal by FEC regulations.
“and the two exceptions I cite are the only two that are written in the law to protect methods and sources.”
And the anonymity in the Congressional cases was also written into law. It comes a question at what point does Law A overrule Law B.
FOIA is supposed to trump everything except provable national security assets.
They work for us, it’s our money not theirs.
According to the FEC a candidate can do exactly what he did, they do it in almost every election. Seriously.
it’s also a violations of the records act.
“According to the FEC a candidate can do exactly what he did, they do it in almost every election. Seriously.”
A candidate can make a donation to his own campaign without informing the FEC?
Trump’s campaign manager passed confidential internal polling data to a Russian connected to Russian security agencies. If Trump did not know he should have known. That is just one instance of likely conspiracy/collusion of Trump with Russians. The general public does not know all the details but it is likely US law enforcement has full back-up based on recent court filings.
a candidate can pay hush money and it can’t be considered a campaign contribution even if it was to silence someone while they were running.
That’s how they wrote the FEC reg, there is no crime here at all.
https://goo.gl/images/vW7ajM
NYr it has yet to be shown what was transferred and why….. could be the smoking gun. It could also be related to 100 other things manfort was involved in with the Podesta’s about the ukraine with russia…. you don’t know and neither does anyone else.
“a candidate can pay hush money and it can’t be considered a campaign contribution even if it was to silence someone while they were running.”
That is simply not true. Show me one politician that has been able to do so?
they do it all the time… they get a friendly paper to write a story and pay the person for the exclusive and not to run it. The campaign finance laws were written by the politicians to give them every loop hole possible. If they can show any tie to their private life in any manner they can declare the expense non campaign related. Protecting their personal reputation falls under that.
Plus Trump setup the first payment to the playboy bunny in 2014 long before he even announced.
The reason the government fund is sealed and changed is because they were using tax payer money to do for sitting candidates what challengers were paying for out of their pocket.
“they get a friendly paper to write a story and pay the person for the exclusive and not to run it.”
And you have evidence of it. Show me one politician who has done this, where it is provable, who has not been investigated by the FEC?
“Plus Trump setup the first payment to the playboy bunny in 2014 long before he even announced.”
Yes. And likely those payments were perfectly legal. The ones he did in 2016 were not.
wrong….
I’ll find you something, but it’s common knowledge and common practice.
“I’ll find you something, but it’s common knowledge and common practice.”
Which means finding it should be pretty easy.
I can’t recall another candidate doing this which is odd if it happens all the time.
That being said I’m not sure that Trump’s payments, altough creepy, were really criminal. There is at least a colorable defense that they were not.
You can’t recall because the Old Grey Ho doesn’t print the news……
and no Seamus since the money is paid to SILENCE someone or a story they really aren’t that easy to pull.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/those-payments-to-mistresses-were-unseemly-that-doesnt-mean-they-were-illegal/2018/08/22/634acdf4-a63b-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44a050f8d557
Well Patrick you advised you would find some examples. I suppose that will be after you help OJ find the real killers.
read the Wapo article counselor
The article does not reveal a single example of what you suggested is common. I think the person who needs to read the article is you.
everyone of these falls into this campaign finance charge……
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/16/20-year-list-of-annualized-congressional-harassment-settlements/
The article verifies what I said about the finance laws, but I know that’s beyond your grasp……
No they dont.
The article is an opinion piece that you parroted. It doesn’t verify what you’ve written.
Again, it shouldn’t provoke your antagonism just asking you to back up what you said was common.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30101&num=0&edition=prelim
Your supposedly a lawyer…… read the reg summary I found what it’s covered under can you….?
Here’s another article Which since it proves me correct you can dismiss, but explains it well.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/in_case_you_forgot__congress_paid_17_million_in_hush_money_to_protect_politicians.html
ot
a good article by a democrat about the FBI and Mueller probe.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mark-penn-fbi-trump-russia-investigation-shows-deep-state-was-worse-than-we-thought