RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Stormy weather

Lol, it's funny after your previous posts. Clearly your the one with the double standard. The guy in charge as noted is a republican btw. One that republicans liked till he was put in charge of the investigation.

Meuller is a Republican in name only.
Of 16 people on his legal Special Investigation team 13 are registered Democrats, 11 are donors to Democrat campaigns, several to the limit of what they can legally donate. Jeannie Rhee, as I said worked for the Clinton Foundation, and her job was to suppress FOIA requests for foundation records. The exact opposite side of the SAME ORGANIZATION she was/is investigating now. Hiring the fox to guard the henhouse.
I suspect Meuller is registered as a Republican to give the appearance of neutrality, to hide his true politics. No true Republican would overwhelmingly fill his investigative team with such blatantly Democrat operatives. But he is a Deep State/Democrat/Globalist operative. Hand-picked by Rosenstein for the job (ANOTHER Deep State/Democrat/globalist operative).

In the general population, what percentage of people ever donate to a political campaign? I would guess less than 10 percent.
And how many donate $100 or more? A tiny fraction of that 10 percent.
To donate $100 or more, or THOUSANDS in many cases, manifests a strong Democrat partisan bias.

And yet... on Meuller's special investigation, they are the overwhelming majority of his legal team.
Maybe Meuller didn't know in advance about their donations. He knows now. Did he force them to recuse, replace them with more visibly neutral attorneys?
NO!
Not a single one.
The Meuller investigation team is corrupted just on that basis. No matter what the final report, it will never be trusted as honest and neutral by 50% of the American public.

You cite no specifics, more vague innuendo, with nothing to back it up. I cited my evidence of Democrat bias and corruption.

And Sean Hannity has multiple times gone through the "impeccable" record of Meuller that "Republicans liked". Let's start with "It'll be a slam dunk", the opinion Meuller gave President Bush on the evidence and ease for invading Iraq in 2003. Do you really believe most Republicans respect that as a professional decision by Meuller that they like and respect? Far from it, Meuller has a record of corruption incompetence.
As does Weissman.
As does Rosenstein.

You allege corruption based on party affiliations and when it's a republican it doesn't count because you say it's in name only. Seems very partisan of you. Thank goodness that type of partisan rationalizing doesn't excuse Trump from any crimes he may have committed. It doesn't matter if the evidence is there if it's presented by law abiding democrats lead by a republican who you call a rhino because he's doing his job.

You haven't proven ONE situation with a Republican to back up your allegations. Not one.

I've demonstrated multiple examples of Democrats who have had extramarital sexual affairs (FDR, LBJ, JFK, Bill Clinton...) where they have unquestionably covered it up, made bribes, rigged elections, used thug intimidation.

If you are going to take a holier-than-thou stance that "your guy" Donald Trump is a "piece of shit" for ALLEGEDLY doing what YOUR guys the Democrats ACTUALLY DID, you might want to acknowledge that what Trump did (if he did it) is not a unique circumstance, and that your side has done it, and far worse MANY, MANY TIMES!

Rigging elections.
Having people killed.
Sexual affairs.
Financial payoffs to hide the affairs.
Sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, not consensual.
Endangering national security with those affairs.

If it ever penetrates your thick head, those collective offenses that Democrats did, are FAR WORSE than what is alleged about Trump. Even if everything alleged about Trump is actually true, it still pales beside the far worse things done by Democrat presidents. And the allegations against Trump are far from proven.
I'm not nominating Donald Trump for sainthood. But your singular animus toward Trump is illogical and selectively ignores the known facts. And the suppression of prosecution of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their inner circle manifests that they are the absolute worst of the bunch. These (the Clintons, and their Deep State operatives across the FBI, DOJ, State Dept, CIA and NSA) are people who weaponized the IRS and intelligence organizations to monitor, and now destroy, their political opposition.

That is not just banging a pornstar for one night, or even paying her off, in the worst scenario.
These Deep State/Democrat players endanger the nation, and would weaponize government not only against Trump, but clearly against anyone who get in their way. I'm daily grateful the Saul Alinsky disciple and cultural marxist revolutionary Hillary Rodham Clinton is not president. We dodged a bullet on election day, whether you realize it or not.

I actually think people like yourself are the threat. I believe Trump should be held to the same standard of law that other Presidents are. If republicans are acting within the law ethically it doesn't absolve a dem that is being investigated. You quite clearly have a partisan standard where the bar is different depending on the party. If Trump's lawyer/fixer just decided to start paying money for Trump's whoring around years after they happen without Trump asking him to do it you have nothing to worry about.

LOL

But YOU don't hold Democrats to the same standard you hold Trump!

I've said over and over that while not proven, I think Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels, and have no problem accepting that if it turns out to be proven. I'll accept evidence that's proven in the hypothetical that Trump is proven to have violated campaign laws to have paid Stormy Daniels.
(Although I have a hard time accepting that as fact, given the overwhelming bias, as I previously quoted Rep Trey Gowdy: "More than bias, ANIMUS!" of those at DOJ and FBI whose own self-incriminating words and texts reveal that animus. )

But it enrages me when there is so much more evidence against Hillary Clinton, and no one at DOJ or FBI even wants to investigate it.
Selective pursuit of justice. Fanatical pursuit of Trump, a free pass for Hillary Clinton.

I have no problem with equal justice under the law, M E M.
It is you and other Democrats who endorse what is likely the most blatant case of selective justice this country has ever seen.

If you endorsed investigating Hillary as zealously as they pursue investigating Trump, I could respect your POV. The fact that you dementedly condone the suppression of a Clinton investigation by Hillary Deep State operatives in the DOJ, FBI and CIA, and the abuses Obama and Dems got away doing the same with the IRS 6 years ago, makes me want to vomit.

Again:

The Clinton Foundation taking hundreds of millions in bribes from foreign companies and governments in exchange for access to State Department officials.
Fusion GPS, selling 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia through a Canadian front company.
33,000 deleted e-mails, deleted AFTER they were subpoenaed.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in multiple text conversations, revealing their plans to rig the investigation, hide evidence, plot an "insurance policy" against Trump being president, and openly plotting a secret meeting with FISA judge Rudolf Contreras to be hidden inside an informal dinner party to meet ex parte to rig the warrant request.

Plus many more blatant crimes warranting investigation. Overwhelming evidence that DOJ and FBI astonishingly won't even look at. Just coincidentally, revealed e-mails, texts, and public comments reveal them to be Democrat loyalists openly plotting that suppression of Clinton investigation.
But as a Democrat, you endorse any twisting of the law and selective prosecution that serves Democrats and hurts Republicans. Yet you lyingly accuse ME of holding that view in reverse, despite that I have only criticized selective prosecutorial bias. Unlike you, I advocate equal protection under the law, not weaponizing DOJ and FBI in service of one party, and giving a free pass to Hillary Clinton and her Deep State agents.

More free passes for your guy, lol. You can certainly accuse Clinton/Dems/republicans that don't do Trump's talking points, of everything you want but that really is only a distraction for you. The FBI didn't raid her lawyer's office.

There is also a part of this story where the media actually played an active part paying another woman besides Stormy money for her story and not reporting it. I know how you feel about the media WB and I'm sure this type of media acting as an active accomplice for a politician must be upsetting for you. Or is it okay for the Enquirer to make hush payments for Trump?

God, M E M, you are SUCH a liar!

The evidence is ALL on my side, of Comey, Strzok, Page, Weissman, and McCabe all suppressing investigation, while simultaneously in revealed e-mails, text messages and in Weissman's case, publicly attending Hillary's election party, and publicly on Facebook praising Sally Yates' defiance of Trump's order against sanctuary cities while she was briefly acting Attorney General.

Sorry these FACTS interfere with your lying narrative.
There IS Democrat bias. There IS Democrat/Deep State suppression of investigating Hillary Clinton. I've certainly linked and otherwise cited abundant examples.
And I've made clear I believe in equal justice under the law. Whereas you openly endorse Democrats manipulating the FBI and DOJ investigations to favor Democrats, and the officials within the FBI and DOJ to do so with impunity.

Poor WB, you would be having a field day if Clinton had the lawyer/fixer paying out cash and being raided. I here it's a very high bar to raid a lawyer so I'm just waiting to see what comes out of that. And no comments about the Enquirer participation?

Okay, now I know you're just trolling me. No serious case on your part, just partisan taunts.

It's not a high bar when it's Republicans they are raiding. The only rationalization for such a raid would be an urgency to stop Cohen from destroying evidence.

Did Cohen destroy evidence?
No !

Did Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jennifer Palmieri destroy evidence, delete 33,000 e-mails, bleachbit hard-drives, smash cel phones, remove and destroy SIM cards from cel phones?
YES !
All the above.

And all >>>>AFTER<<< already subpoenaaed by FBI, DOJ, and Congress investigators.
The FBI and DOJ had all the evidence they needed to prosecute. But just like the IRS/Koskonin/Lois Lerner investigation several years ago, just like with Hillary right before the 2016 election, they magically made a decision to not prosecute despite all the evidence. I saw one report that when Comey made his 2016 speech of "no reasonable person would prosecute Hillary Clinton" recommending to not indict, FBI agents were angry and disgusted and started walking out on the job that day.

Citing the above, it is clear who warranted a search to prevent destruction of evidence, and who didn't. And it's not Cohen who destroyed evidence.
And the FBI's Inspector General two days ago released a report that he agrees with the FBI internal affairs dept (Office of Professional Responsibility) that McCabe was corrupt and needed to be fired. (If McAuliffe's $500,000 donation to his wife's campaign didn't make clear his allegiance to Hillary Clinton already.)
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin all were calling for Comey's firing a year ago. Now suddenly after Trump did it (on Rosenstein's WRITTEN recommendation!) it's evil, unjust, and a criminal conspiracy.

Those are the facts, much as you'd like to pretend they don't exist. Facts that prove the corruption of Deep State pro Hillary operatives in the DOJ and FBI.

Raiding Cohen's office is, AGAIN, just a desperate attempt by the Deep State pro-Hillary crowd to manufacture a crime, since there clearly was no Trump collusion with the Russians.
But PLENTY of Hillary/DNC collusion with the Russians, that outrageously ISN'T being investigated, for partisan reasons and selective prosecution.

There is a very high legal bar to do the raid they did WB.

That's a deception, hiding illegality under the face of legal authority. .
There certainly wasn't a "high legal bar" for the actions of Loretta Lynch cutting a deal on the airport tarmac with Bill Clinton to not indict Hillary.
Likewise, there wasn't a "high bar" when James Comey and Andrew McCabe used the Russia dossier they knew to be (in their own words) "salacious" and "unreliable" to falsify evidence to get a FISA warrant to do surveillance on Carter Page. FOUR TIMES.
There wasn't a "high bar" on display when Peter Strzok and Lisa page openly plotted to set up an "insurance policy" against a Trump presidency through their actions at the highest level of the FBI.
There wasn't a "high bar" in Strzok and Page text messages planning an ex parte meeting with FISA judge Rudolf Contreras, hidden within a casual dinner party.
And although the FISA surveillance was obtained on falsified evidence, none of the FISA judges have come forward to object or throw out the evidence, that is fruit of the poisoned tree.

At every step of the process, there has been corruption and partisan malice on display, on the part of the Democrat/Deep State operatives, in the service of their bitch queen Hillary Clinton.

Despite what you say it is a very high legal bar. I would point out that you go way beyond the facts. For example assuming Bill cut some deal with Loretta. She recused herself to avoid the appearance of anything fishy. The raid on Trump's fixer required several high hurdles being met and not just within the FBI. What I take from the fact that they were able to do the raid I suspect Cohen is screwed. And given that he was running around during the election paying off women hush money for Trump it's not looking good for Spanky either.

Stormy will be attending court hearing

My point in my last post is that all along, we have trusted that there was a high legal bar at every stage. And at every stage, Comey, Rosenstein, Meuller, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Yates, Lynch and the rest have AT EVERY STAGE demonstrated their ability to abuse the law to fit their own politics and self-interest.
Which further makes me highly skeptical that a "high bar" was held at this stage. It would be the first time in over a year of this witch-hunt that a high bar was actually held!

Involving the Southern District of New York, utilizing state attorney's office in a dominantly liberal state makes me wonder whether the federal Deep State operatives simply enlisted like-minded NY state Deep State Hillary-voter operatives.

I've read multiple articles, most recently in The Hill, quoting legal sources saying "Oh, for the Southern District of New York to raid Michael Cohen's office, they would have met a very high bar of evidence."
Really?
So where is it?
Why is it not publicly stated what the evidence was to make the raid? We're not talking about top secret national security issues that would endanger anyone. If there is evidence that warranted the raid, the raid has been done, so SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!

I think it entirely possible that the "high bar" was no higher than when Comey and Rosenstein submitted the false Russia Dossier as evidence to a judge, FOUR TIMES, to do FISA surveillance on Carter Page.

The same "high bar" that allowed Meuller to fill his special investigation with 13 Democrats, 11 of whom donated to the Hillary and Obama campaigns, and 9 of whom donated $100 or more, some of them thousands, in blatant partisanship for which they should recuse themselves. Some of whom worked directly legally representing the Clinton Foundation or Hillary Clinton.

We are supposed to trust that because they represent federal law enforcement they are above board and neutral and set a "high bar". But at every stage, THEY HAVE NOT.
There is absolutely no reason to trust that this time they finally did.
Show us the evidence, or it's just another deception.

Well I guess we disagree. You also offer a false choice. I don't know the legalities but they obviously can have the evidence no matter your declaration that it's deception if it's not put out in the public now.

Oh and I wonder what Hannity needed Cohen for that his regular lawyers couldn't handle, lol.

As Hannity has explained, he never employed Cohen as a lawyer. As Hannity explained, they are friends having lunch and talking, and Hannity would say he has this or that potential legal situation, what do you think I should do. He said he never hired or paid Cohen for anything, and that he's highly amused by the media's pouncing on the mention of his name, showing clips of CNN and MSNBC anchors mentioning him over and over, with orgasmic glee that Hannity might have done something wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkyWp56m-I

President Trump is currently at Mar a Lago in Palm Beach (about 30 minutes north of me), hosting the Prime minister of Japan.

I was amused to see that Stormy Daniels is also here in West Palm Beach at a strip club, in what she bills as her "Make America Horny Again Tour".

Amused, but not so curious as to make a trip up there to see her. I've driven up a few times to Palm Beach while Trump was in town. He's there about one weekend a month, sometimes more often.

I don't buy that bs but if it was somehow true than Hannity can't really claim lawyer/client privilege. And no surprise that he's a huge hypocrite by not disclosing his conflict of interest when covering this story.

I doubt Hannity would be so bold to say that if there were any records or evidence to indicate otherwise.

And Hannity in his April 17th program, starting at 10 minutes in to about 20 minutes, cited a long list of never disclosed relationships between liberal media anchors and network executives with both the Clinton administration, Obama administration, and the Hillary campaign.

Including:

George Stephaanopoulos
Jake Tapper
Virginia Mosely, Senior Vice President for CNN, married to Steve Nides, the former undersecretary of state for Hillary Clinton
Claire Shipman, reporter for ABC, married to Obama's former press secretary Jay Carney
Susan Rice, her husband worked for ABC news

And:

96% of all journalist presidential campaign contributions were to the Hillary campaign.
Journalists from virtually every network (ABC, NBC, CNN, Bloomberg) attended a pre-announcement party at a key Clinton staffer's house right before Hillary officially announced her 2016 candidacy.
30 journalists who left liberal media to work for the Obama administration. (As reported by MRC.org, and also reported by the Washington Post)

Hannity also ccites the Democrat bias of virtually everyone selected (13 of 17 lawyers) for the Mueller investigation, are Democrat donors. And how that is only reported by Fox and conservative media.

So Trump's fixer was lying when he listed Hannity as an actual client?

I think maybe he was embarrassed that Trump is his only true client, and tried to embellish by including Hannity, who he only gave friendly advice to.
And a third client Cohen would not disclose.

The POINT that you ignored above, is the FAR more extensive undisclosed relationships of the entire liberal media to the Obama and Clinton administrations, and to Frau Hitlery's State Department and campaign. That Hannity cited, and by his account gave only a tiny slice of.

https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101

A bigger slice of liberal media bias and incestuous relationships with the Democrats, courtesy of the Media Research Center.

Plus the book BIAS, by Bernard Goldberg.

And LEFT TURN, by Tim Groseclose.


Which I've cited before.

And of course...

93% of Washington-based Reporters Voted For Obama



Perhaps that warrants disclosure more than Hannity's friendship with a lawyer that he never officially paid or received an invoice from.

So in your book Hannity didn't do anything wrong by not disclosing his relationship with Cohen? I'm trying to gauge if you actually apply any principle to your side.

As Hannity tells it, there is no actual business relationship. It sounds to me like he just informally asked Cohen's opinion over cocktails or dinner, and that Hannity entrusted the actual transactions to other lawyers that he actually paid.

Since Cohen said that Hannity is his client, it's legitimate to clarify what Hannity's relationship is with Cohen. But pending any facts to the contrary, Hannity has answered those questions, and he doesn't have business ties to Cohen.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAUNDRY LIST OF REPORTERS HANNITY CITED WITH FAR MORE EXTENSIVE UNDISCLOSED POLITICAL TIES?!?
A long list of undisclosed incestuous relationships by CNN reporters and executives?
Who donated 96% for Hillary Clinton?
With extensive ties to the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton administrations and staff?

You once again hold Republicans to a >>>>FAR<<<<< higher standard than the thieving Cultural Marxist America-hating bastards you align yourself with.

Nope, you just gave Hannity a free pass. You can make all the accusations you want but those would be off topic and sad partisan deflection. Hannity is also very biased so if you don't accept fact checks I'm sure as heck not accepting Hannity crap.

Cohen is reportedly taking the 5th, lol

How dare he assert his Constitutional Rights!

Yup even Spanky 's thug has them.

What about Hillary's thugs, and Comey's thugs?
There is still no evidence against Trump. Or Cohen at this point.

Even as there are mountains against Hillary Clinton and her evil Deep State minions, who are selectively not prosecuted despite the overwhelming evidence. Partly because Deep State agents in the DOJ and FBI are stonewalling disclosure of records and evidence that would convict them.

AGAIN:
1) Surprise midnight raid of Cohen's home, office and hotel room. Allegedly necessary to prevent him from destroying evidence.
2) No raids of homes or offices of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Despite that they ACTUALLY DID destroy evidence, and were given the time by FBI and DOJ to destroy it. And destroyed mountains of it: 33,000 e-mails, wiped computer hard-drives, and smashed cel phones to bits with a hammer to destroy e-mails and texts.

A clear FBI and DOJ double standard.

You also snuck this one by me...



But...



You lyingly allege I gave Hannity a free pass. I clearly didn't. I said that it was legitimate to ask about Cohen's relationship. But Hannity answered and there is no legal relationship. So unless there's some evidence otherwise, Hannity has nothing more to answer for.

As opposed to the mountains of evidence against Hillary Clinton and the evil minions among her staff, and in the DOJ and FBI.

JUDGE IN COHEN CASE APPOINTS INDEPENDENT 'SPECIAL MASTER' TO REVIEW COHEN'S SEIZED RECORDS. STORMY DANIELS' LAWYER FILES TO OBTAIN RECORDS FROM SEIZURE

Records that never should have been subject to search in the first place.

When DOJ shows equal zeal for obtaining Hillary's deleted 33,000 e-mails, and filing charges against Hillary, Huma, and Mills for destroying evidence, then and only then could this be called a legitimate raid. Or have any resemblance to equal protection and prosecution under the law.

It takes telling an untruth to lie. I honestly believe you're giving Hannity a free pass. If his relationship was so inconsequential why ask Cohen not to name him as a client? Or why would Cohen lie to a judge by making up a client?

Lol, it's Trump Justice Department. Even they have some standards. Your partisan accusations actually don't equate to evidence.

Btw today Trump mentioned Cohen was representing him with the hush money.

The Stormy Daniels rabbit-hole narrative was especially necessary on Friday, when Congress' special investigation released their findings that there was no evidence of a Trump/Russia collusion (if you recall, the ACTUAL RATIONALIZATION for opening an investigation of Trump, before Democrats and Meuller began desperately flailing for anything they could pin on Trump.

So it's over, the Meuller investigation should be winding down soon. Rudy Giuliani was hired by Trump, presumably to negotiate toward that inevitable end.

Courtesy of Lou Dobbs, Thursday April 26th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4EDmmsekKQ

The Columbia University professor that Comey leaked FBI records to that triggered forming the Meuller special investigation is yet another manufactured false pretense under which the special investigation was triggered. Started under false and deceitful means, the investigation should be ended.

and Sean Hannity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdp-bVYDcEM